The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-03-21
DISPUTES HER LAWYERS BILL
WHICH WAS $1,000 ron 90 DAYS
WORK FOR HER.

Nr. GulIch', Bm Larger Than That of
tbe LAWYER VINO Tried the Case
-Another Bm Ter $500 in suit
Over SI,AOO-LaWyer Now suing
Alexander II. Quick, a young lawyer, Is
suing Ana II. Gaj Iam to REQ YER slOOOo
counsel fees, and the case was on trial yes
terday in the Supreme Court before Justice
OGoTman and a jury.
Mr.. Gulick says that in May, 1893, Mrs
Canaan, who is a daughter OF the hle
John r. Reading Of Philadelphia and VINO
Inherited a trust fund Of tl,0O0,OOO, tele-
Rrapbed him in New York 10 come TO Phlla-
delphia v here she as living Mrs Gaz-
zau. he SAYS, was greatly distressed over
summons and complaint which had been
served on her In a suit brought by Eliza
beth g. Reading for 10000 dam age for
the alienation Of the affections OF X ChaIl-
ton Reading, husband Of the plaintih ana
smployed at that time as superintendent
Of the building Of a house MIS- Hal@aIn
vas erecting at Cornv all-on-the-huu Soii'
Gulick is a nephew of Reading. lie says
that Mrs Gazzam told him she "all'eu
somebody whom she knew and to "hom
she could talk in confidence regarding the
case.
Il accepted the retainer and told her
would act in conjunction with her Fhila-
delphia counsel, Messrs. johnson Dale
he testified.
It was agreed. he said, that he was to
represent Reading He had a conference
with Reading and saw Mrs Eeadthg an,,
tried 40 oct her to withdraw the suit, urging
that she was @laboring under a mlsappre5,
hension.' She did not withdraw u ana
she got a verdict OF S25 900; Quick says
he worked forty-si1 days on the case a 20
wrote 100 letters, For his seIv'GSs as r ~
charges $1,000, which Mrs. Gazzam has nov
paid. The rest is for services on SUIT
over some damaged furniture, 80,
Francis L. Wellman crosse Nanined the
witness and brought out that Mi: tuliy =
had charged twice as much a. eIthGr OF
the Philadelphia lawyers, who tired the
case and argued IL twice on appeal MTs'
Gazzam, Mr., Gulck said, had told nm she
thought he ought to have twice as much a'
either Of them -. o
You say you worked forty-siN DAYS
continued Mr. Wellman. That's Sl5@ a
dav. II YOU were employed by everybody
at that rate you would get $1,000 year,
let's see, you had been practising SIX years
at that time, hadn't your Oh, yes llookhg
at Gulick's bill ! see YOU charge for sun i,
DAYS. | didn't count them in. Well adu
them. That makes it $4,000 year. Ana
do YOU charge more when you go into court
than Won DO when YOU meet your clients
at the ferries and drive uptown on business
with themV
THAT depends upon circumstances, was
the answer. 90,
ore of the items in Mr.. Gulick's bill as
q time charge Is for te.ophoning TO the
$50 YOU charged $50 for telcphoning to
the office, did vou?T asked Mr.. Wellman.
Mr.. Gulick said that he charged an hours
time.
In the furniture case Mr.. Gulick spent
eight days in the law library reading up.
Only 81, 400 was involved In the suit. He
charged Mrs. Gazzam 81 500 for the first
eight hearings in the case. The costs and
reference fees amounted to 81, 200. He eX-
planned his charge Of 81 500 rs compared
with $500 charged by the man who APP
peared in court by saying that he worked
You probably mean that you did it
slower said Mr.. Wellman.
Mr.. Gulick said that he had lived In the
same house with Reading his uncle, IN
this city ard that he saw him once in while
now.
Mir. Wellman asked il the witness had ever
suspected that Reading had a purpose u
not testifying at the trial regarding his
wife, and that Reading had divided the
SIS 900 with her. Mr.. Quick said mol!
emphaticaily.
Mr.. Quick is a graduate Of the Columbia
law school and Of Princeton. The case
was not concluded.