The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-06

~ ~ 80 NJ NTT FtT Sgf H.
~ NfI's n HO1T AM


flokaea 4 tsuaelfs fssH,~s friend and
asfoFney Iohn tirtahuuty aSt . vttdirs
aeainue him In mo HHpseuNe Court ssa'ef.
day fos thp hfIi sHo'int sued for fot aefvicrf
fendered Nv CaaHrld Willis tsuneld ~es
Haifiha pis'sict Attorney ier0fns
n tOok the lufy las, an houf and q hall
~ feach y verdict When they fe'lfed
Dclshunty sent 40 town 10 he otBh shile
CaHheld and he mauaesf strolled ~ w q
neafby restaurant
Caaaslda eostnael. Battle \ Marshall,
s'ayed IN cuift, 90 DID ~Delahda,y'a lawyer,
Fimund f. M0oaey Canheld had appaf
ently got dlsanuted With tho whols affair.
II u said that In private he has coufesacd
Ina. hs aw teo late the blunder he had
made In cunning 10 court 90 nght his
lawyer Buohlin. ~ clipper upon tho
witness stand q few days ago, ssened TO
have acquired q monopoly upon all the
looss terrestrial d~cspondenoy, The day
before he vent on tho witness stan him
self Garfield was heard 90 say that he
would stand OF fall by the verdict 81 the
jury. No appeals for him, vas his declara.
ton.
The verde, means that Garfield must
pay Delahunty. according 10 the reckoning
Of Mr.. Mooney, t4s,O si -, This Includes
interest and allows for Canheld's counter.
claim on the Delahunty notes.
Finding a. they did for the full amount
claimed by D~elahunty, the jury's verdict
amounts 10 this: For the lawyers services
In keeping the gambler out of Jail from
December ., 1902, the night Of the raid, until
about July 1904, when Delahunty and Can
field parted, $50 500. less a cash dvanc OF
34O5. 10. The balance In D~elahunty's favor
IL So, 0e4. 30.
For the collection Of the three 500 900
notes executed In Canfield's favor by Regi-
Maid G. Vanderbilt, on a compromise set
Element Of $50 600 Delahunty gets his
full claim Of rs per cent, which is sS2,5Oo
again. But against this there Is a cash
payment OF IS 900 to be allowed, and also
three notes made by Delahunty, aggregat-
ing s14,5OO. The balance in Delahunty's
favor here 10 $4,000. The notes date back
some years and carry interest to date.
So does the verdict from the date, in July,
1904, when lawyer and client parted. The
net result, according to the computations
made by the lawyers. Is that Delahunty
Is entitled to a judgment for services against
Garfield for $72 1853 rs, while Garfield is
entitled to a counterclaim on the notes
for $24 ,e7i 81. The difference, s4s ,0s1 "a,
Is the amount Of the judgment against
Garfield to which Delahunty becomes en-
! titled by the verdict.
The trial was remarkable in many ways.
| To begin with, it was the first time that
| Richard A. Garfield had ever come into a
lawsuit openly and the first time he was
ever called to the witness stand. The
curiosity Of the average mar to see this in
dividual, whom his forme counsel dubbed
as prince Of Gamblers was very evident
from the crowds that sought admission.
A bar had to be put up, with a couple OF
court officers in attendance, to restrain the
curious from making their way in by main
force. Also there was an added Interest
in the fact that a discovery of the names of
many prominent men who had been Can
fields customers was expected. Only a
couple Of names cropped out, and they were
those which Garfield evidently did not care
to conceal.
There are other lawyers who have claims
against Garfield for legal services during
his times Of trouble and distress. Philip
Britt wants SIS 900 for advising him TO plead
guilty, In addition to a IS 900 retainer already
paid, and John B.. Stanchfeld also says that
Garfield owes hin something. but Canfi@d
.a.. - ,,o,tt not II