Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1906-02-09

hhiu v. " THUS, attorney hh hiofehhiu, Wfo
letter to Glen Bailey Of Kinston, Mort
Carolina, as aforesaid, he, the said Gle
Bailey being a member OF the firm Of
Bailey and ottinger Brothers, for whom sal
@. @. Fits, attorney had the account Il
collection and OF which letter the followin
is copy,
"Brattleboro, VT, Apr. End, 1894.
"Clem Bailey, ESQ.,
Dear sir:--
II have succeeded In getting $4,000 q
Smith & Company, for which enclose checl
The balance will be forthcoming soon,
think. II is amply secured and ! will pus
il TO close as soon as possible. Pleas
acknowledge receipt OF this.
Yours very truly
&c. @. Fits
Your petitioners further say on confrma
tion and belief and beg leave TO further rep
resent and show that IL was several MONTH
after that this account was finally settled
and that the clients Of the said Q. O. Fits
attorney as aforesaid were artfully, craft
| fully, dishonesty and unprofessionally de
ceived by him.
Again, your petitioners ask leave to show
that on the report Of an auditor at the Sep
tember term Of the Wndham County court
| 1905, he, the said G. G. Fits. attorney
through the report of the said auditor, Sc
cured a judgment on his book account
against one OF his clients, namely, Daniel p.
Prescott, Of windham county when, through
the facts brought out, at the hearing before
said auditor, IL was made to appear, and did
appear and was shown that the said C. G.
Fits, attorney as aforesaid while charging
on his book Of account for services rendered
his client Daniel p. Prescott, that he at
the same time was charging and making an
account as the attorney for the plaintiff in
another suit In which the said Daniel p.
Prescott was defendant IN which said latter
suit he, the said c. c. Fits, attorney as
aforesaid. sought to recover the money which
he was claiming in another suit as the at.
torney OF Daniel p. Prescott, as aforesaid
that the said Prescott did not owe.
We further respectfully beg leave to show
that which we believe to be the deceitful
course which has been pursued by the said
O. c. Fits, not only as the attorney of
Daniel p. Prescott, but in other matters
with which he had to do.
We desire to show that by means Of what
we believe 10 be his unprofessional conduct
towards the said Prescott. who was q prom
Using and successful business man, said
Prescott lost all Of his property, and is now
comparatively poor man.
We submit that we firmly believe the
course Of procedure and methods adopted
by the said G. O. Fits, attorney as sfore-
said, practcing before your honorable court
should not go without punishment by the
court and we earnestly and respectfully sub
nit his course has been such as to warrant
on the part OF the Court prompt and thor
ough investigation, that the same may prove
a reminder to every citizen within our bor-
ders that no attorney or officer Of the court,
whatever his station, shall be permitted TO
trife with their clients interests in a man.
ner so disgraceful and dishonorable alike,
both to the bench and bar OF Vermont. as
herein set forth. and by means Of which said
ieceitfu and dishonorable conduct justice
miscarries. and those property
rights and interests and the interests Of the
citizens as guaranteed by The constitution
become imperiled and oftentimes are abso-
utely destroyed.
The foregoing is our prayer to your Hon |
,rable court and we respectfully ask for !
,ueh action by the court In the premises as
nay best serve the ends Of justice.
+ L. Martin. one Of the counsel for
ITr. Fits. then moved that the reading l
# the answer be dispensed with. but (
{ was finally decided to have it read
n view Of the fact that one of the
had not seen it. After
Ir. Martin finished reading this docu
nent, Col A. 4. Hall, chairman of the
commission, stated that in order to ex-
,edite the matter the testimony would
e confined to three issues; namely, the
barge that Mr. Fits gave protection
o George F. Richards in 1895, the
barge that Mr.. Fits had failed to act
quarely in the matter of the s. A.
mith & company collection, and the
barge that Mr. Fits was unfaithful
, his client D. p Prescott, in the we'll
nown Bartlett-Prescott case.
At the request of the counsel for the !
etitioners, the s. A. Smith & company
atter was taken up first, Mr., SPELL :
ian offering in support of the claim
artain letters from Glen Bailey of
.inston. n. c., president of the firm
{ Bailey Ottinger Brothers to S. A.
mith & company. Mr.. Fits s coun-
j conceded that the letters had been
.ceived in due course of mail by s.
. Smith & company and also that the
tiers were in the handwriting of
alley 1t did not appear, however,
rat they were brought to the attention
{ Mr.. Fits, and the attorney for the
rosecution did not claim that the let
RS produced, with the exception of
lie one embodied in the petition, were
roper and admissible as evidence in
le case under consideration. p. l..
unit, of the firm of S. A. Smith &
,mpany, was put on the witness stand
testify in regard to these letters, but
&c opt bn Lott
uded Mr.. specimen then stated that
, would introduce no further evidence
i the charge relative to the S. A.
NTH & company collection, but
,ped later to be able to contradict
e statement of Mr.. Fits that the
.yment to Bailey & Ottinger Brothers
as made later than June 81, 1894, as
aimed in the answer to the petition.
Daniel P. Prescott was next called
ID sworn. Before beginning the ex
Mr.. Spellman said that he
shed to show by the history about
e Prescott case that Mr.. Fits was
rving Prescott in the Bartlett-Pres-
tt suit at the same time that he was
hitting Prescott IN the Crown & Bail
suit and was also retained by Bart
1t, who was fighting Prescott. j. L.
artin then went into a detailed state
ent regarding the Bartlett-Prescott
Sc, pointing out the different points
each and explaining them for the
nefit of the commission. In regard
Mr.. Prescott IS evidence Col. Hall
lted that the commission would let
N testify on matters alleging to per-
in to infdelity on the part of Mr..
it's as counsel for the witness. At
is point recess was taken until
clock
Mr.. Prescott s testimony occupied
of the afternoon session and was
linly re-statement of the various