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

TO ret other items Of cost; that this re-
spondent was then engaged In business of
and manufacturing as hereinafter
fully set forth and was on large amounts OF
paper and obligations on account thereof ;
that there was charged up TO his account
after said deposit certain Of such obligations
thereby reducing the amount In the bank 10
a sum below the balance due his clients;
that after settling with Judge Read and the
items OF cost, the respondent RENTED all
that he had, all according to the letter OF
April ., 1894, as appears In the complaint
and thereafterwards as soon as II was pos
sible for him to get the money,to wit, ON
June 81, 1894, he remitted TO the plaintiffs
all the balance due them with interest on
the whole amount from the time II came into
his hands, all Of which was during that same
year well known 10 said Smith and Hunt,
This respondent denies that in the premises
he ever undertook 10 wrong and defraud the
said plaintiffs in any way whatever, but upon
the complication arising as aforesaid, sought
TO make full payment and restitution, includ.
ing interest at the earliest moment he could,
which he did.
Relative to both the foregoing matters of
complaint this respondent has this to answer
in general: That before he became OF age,
10 wit, when he was Is years old he became
involved in the business Of quarrying and
in which he suffered very large
loss; that when he became Of age he as.
sumed the obligations previously incurred
and thereafterwards for period of seven or
eight years was in Strengthened circumstances
and wat in heavy debt TO the
banks in Brattleboro and others with paper
continually becoming due and sometimes go.
ing TO protest that he sought to and did
pay off his obligations in full without loss of
a dollar 10 any man and without wronging
any client in any way, and that for the last
six years he has had unencumbered attach
able property in Brattlebor0, as shown by
the records, Of several thousand dollars and
that anyone having any obligations of any
character against him might have secured II
at any time during the last six years had he
so chosen. This respondent AYERS that no
man now or heretofore directly or indirectly
connected with the liquor traffic in any way
holds any unpaid obligation Of any character
or kind against him.
This respondent further answering says
that the facts concerning the two foregoing
matters Of complaint are generally and well
known In Brattleboro and have been for many
years: that the said Smith and Hunt have
openly and publicly told Of the said collee.
tion matter against them; that the said suit
Of August 90. 1898, said check and all
the details thereof were published and dis
eussed in both the local papers of Brattle.
boro AT the time; that there never has been
any concealment or attempted concealment Of
the facts thereof on the part of this respond
ent and that he understands and believes
that most Of the complainants have known
in general about these two matters for the
last seven or eight years.
Wherefore this respondent from all the
foregoing claims that the said eomplainants
in making complaint as 10 said check and
said collection, which occurred so long ago,
and were settled and disposed of are not
justified in bringing this proceeding at this
time.
Your respondent answering the allegation
in the affidavit of Fred G. Gale filed with this
petition, denies the same in toto and declares
that it is absolutely false
S-The D. P. Prescott Matter.
This respondent answering relative TO the
d. p Prescott matter says that he was
employed by said Prescott as counsel in the
suit Of Bartlett VS. Prescott commencing in
December 1900, and from thence up to the
April term 1904, in Windham County court.
He AYERS that during the whole progress OF
said case and all the questions arising there
in he acted in good faith for the best in
terests OF his client as he believed and with
the sole purpose of protecting the interests
of his client, said Prescott, in everything
about said case; that he never knowingly did
anything to prejudice the interests OF his
client but with all his zeal and ability work
cd for his said clients interests; that he
brought suit of Crown & Bailey vs. Bartlett
upon promissOry note OF said Bartlett and
trusteed said Prescott as alleged in complaint
but did so with the thorough understanding
between all parties interested that as be-
tween Crown 4 Bailey and Prescott his first
service and duty was to PRESCOTT that there
never was secured any judgment against said
Prescott as trustee in said Crown Bailey
suit; that judgment was rendered IN favor
of said Crown & Bailey against Bartlett, the
principal defendant at the September term
OF 1908 Of Windham County court but that
said case was then and always thereafter
ward continued to trustees until the ter
mination of the Bartlett vs. Prescott suit
when the Crown & Bailey suit was
settled; that this respondents employ
ment and action taken in the Crown q
Bailey suit were approved by said Prescott,
was known to him and other counsel associ-
ated with the respondent for said Prescott
during the entire time of the litigation, and
was known to the court that all the same
was in good faith that this respondent never
acted in a dual capacity therein but always
with the single purpose of first securing the
rights of said Prescott in the Bartlett case
This respondent denies that he owned the
claim or judgment of Crown Bailey VS..
Bartlett or any interest therein and ne de.
MES that any liability he was under for said
Bailey in any way had to do with or inhu-
enced his action in the Bartlett VS.. Prescott
case. This respondent AYERS that soon after
the beginning of the said case of Bartlett
VS.. Prescott another attorney, A. f. Schwenk
of Brattleboro was employed by sald fres'
colt as counsel therein with the respondent
and thenceforward 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 Pres
colt, and that later in the case another at
torney, John f. Gale of Guilford, was like
wise employed by said Prescott and thence.
forward said Gale was always privy to all
that was done in aid about said suits; that
on different times during the progress OF
said ease Prescott employed other counsel,
to wit, John II. Senter of Montpelier, ana
Elisha May of st. Johnsbury.
This respondent further answering, with
ont going into detail denies each and every
one of the allegations of unprofessional con
duct set forth in the affidavit OF said u
p. Prescott filed with this complaint and de-
nies that there was ever any neglect, lndlf'
ference, coiiusloh irauu VI "fonS
any character on his part in and about the
matters of said Prescott in any way, shape
or form. This respondent further answer
ing says that something more than year
ago he learned that said Prescott had made
some statements charging this respondent
with being unfaithful to him in said litigation
and of having acted in a dual capacity and
that thereupon the said Prescott not having
paid and settled the respondents account
against him for services in said case, he de
manded settlement of said Prescott, giving
him notice that if the settlement was not
made he, this respondent, would sue Pres
colt therefor because of the statements which
said Prescott had made as aforesaid and II
order to give said Prescott an opportunity e
make defense against said account on saic