Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-08-24
LAWYERS SUE EACH OTHER
Porter |. Wood Has Claim Against
 J. (. Church.


 lawyers of Waterbury. Some can't collect their fees and some have sued other lawyers. The latest instance of one lawyer suing another took place yesterday, when Attorney Por- ter l.. Wood brought suit for James L. Alcott against Attorney U. c. Church for $1,000 damages. Some weeks ago Attorney Bauby entered suit against Attorney Wood. but that was light matter involving only $25 and most lawyers smiled at It. looked upon 1t as joke and Justicez of the Peace Phelan refused to giveE Judgment against Attorney Wood ouN the grounds that 1t was unprofes-2 s.onal for one lawyer to sue another. That was considered another time to laugh. But this suit against At-9 torney Church is by no means a# laughing matter, for he is becomingS a shining light in the profession anda his appointment as prosecutor in the3 district court pushed him up whole lot of degrees on the political ladder. It Is not only the suit itself but whata is alleged in it that caused the sens sati0n among the bar. for Attorney Wood practically charges Attorney Wood with ignorance of the law and appropriating clients money. Tho suit is sequel to the old case otl James L. Alcott of Wolcott against Mrs Seraphine Rodier of Oakville. In that suit Alcott was represented by Attorney Church and he alleged that ..e had a right of way of neces-s sity through certain land owned bys | the defendant to his own land. Attorney Wood in his complaintl charges that to further push that ! suit Attorney Church obtained an in-s junction restraining Mrs Rodier from interfering with Alcott whenever hs would have occasion to pass over her I land to get to his own. This was I early in 1905. In that fall of that year Attorney Church, according to Attorney Woods complaint repre- scented to Alcott that by paying Mrs Rodier $95 he could effect settle- ment and secure for him for all time the disputed right of way over her land. Alcott, having implicit faith in his counsel. gave him the money. But Attorney Wood alleges that Att torney Church did not pay this money to Mrs Rodier and did not effect settlement of. the case, that in fact he kept the money for his own use.
 l Previous to this, however, Attor- ney Church withdrew the first com plaint wherein he had set up that his client had right of way of ne- cessity over Mrs Rodier's land and substituted claim of right of way by prescription. Last December that case was tried in the superior court and, 1t was decided for Mrs Rodier who was given costs of $53.13. The 1 injunction suit was also lost. That l settled the case for the time being and 1t seems Alcott discharged Attor- ney Church.
 | Last February, however, Alcott re- tained Attorney Wood to try what luck he would have with the case. so he instituted proceedings anew, setting up the original claim which had been withdrawn by Attorney Church. right of way Qf necessity. Again Alcott lost, Mrs R6dier's coun- sel. Attorney Root, claiming that right of way of necessity could not be set up as 1t had been withdrawn in the first. and that, anyway, the case mad been already tried and ad- indicated and could not be tried over again and the court took that view of l--e situation.
 Now. Attorney Wood contends in his complaint that because Attorney Church did not stick to his original claim, right of way of necessity, AL cott lost his case. his $92. his $52.13 costs in the case. that he has been damaged $500 and claims damages of $1,000.
 It has been reported that the case has been refused by three lawyers before 1t was tendered Attorney Wood. It Is also said that if law yer had any feeling against another lawyer and the latter should lose a case the former could induce his client to bring suit against him for not winning 1t.