Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1906-02-08

THE ID. J.. PRESCOTT MATTER.
This respondent answering relative TO
the u. y. Prescott matters says that
he was employed by said Prescott as
counsel in the suit of Bartlett VS.. Pres
colt commencing in December, 1900, and
from thence up to the April term, 1904,
in Windham county court. lie ayers
that during the whole progress OF said
case and all the questions arising therein
he acted in good faith for the best IN
tcrosts of his client as he believed and
with the sole purpose of protecting tho
interests of his client. said Prescott, in
everything about said case; that he
never knowingly did anything to prcj-
udice the interests of his client
but with all his zeal and ability
worked for his said clients interests;
that he brought suit of Crown e. Bailey |
vs.. Bartlett upon "a promssory note oil
said Bartlett and trusted said Pres
colt as alleged in complaint but did
SO with the thorough understanding
between all parties interested that as
between Crown e. Bailey and Prescott |
his first service and duty was to Pres
colt; that there never was secured any
Indictment against said Prescott as
trustee in said Crown & Bailey suit;
that Judgment was rendered in favor
Of said Crown a. Bailey against Bart
lett, the principal defendant. at the
Sept cmbcr term of 1908 of Windham
County Court but that said case was
then and always thcreaftcrward con-
tinucd as to trustees until the tcrmina
ton Of the Bartlett vs.. Prescott suit
when the Crown & Bailey suit was
settled: that this respondents employ
mcnt and action taken i'll the Crown
| e. Bailey suit were approved by said
| Prescott was known to him and other
| counsel associated with the respon-
dent for said Prescott during the en-
! tire time of the litigation, and was
| known to the court; that all the same
was in good faith: that this respon-
dent never acted in a dual capacity
therein but always with the single
purpose of first securing the rights
! that he owned the claim or judgment
Of Crown d Bailey VS.. Bartlett or any
interest therein and he denies that any
liability he was under for said Bailey
in any way had to do with or in
nucnccd his action in the Bartlett vs..
Prescott case. This respondent AYERS
said case of Bartlett vs.. Prescott an
other attorney, \. +. Schwcnk of Brat
tleboro. was employed by said Prescott
as counsel therein with the respondent
and thcnccforward acted with him as
such counsel and was priVy to all
moves made by counsel including said
trustee suit and all that was done for
and in behalf OF said Prescott, and that
later in the case another attorney,
john T.. Gale of Guilford. was likewise
employed by said Prescott and thence
forward said Gale was always privy
to all that was done in and about said
suits: that on different times during
the progress of said case Prescott en-
ploycd other counsel. to wit, John II.
Sentcr Of Moutp"li"r. and Elisha May
Of st. JohnsburH.
no UNFROFFSSIONAL CONDUCT.
This respondent further answering,
without going into detail, denies each and
every one Of the allegations Of unprofcs-
sioual conduct set forth in the affidavit
of said i. i. Prescott filed with this COM
pluiut and denies that there WAS ever amy
neglect. indifference. ColluSion, fraud OF
wrong doing Of any character on his part
in and about the matters Of said Prescott
in any WAY, shape or form. This respond
, cnt further answering says that some
thing more than Il year ago he learned
that said Prescott had made some state
neuts charging this respondent with be
, ing uniaithful to him in said litigation
, and of having acted In dual capacity
and that thcrcupon the e;,.d Prescott not
having paid and settled the respondent