Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-10-26
CITY OFFICIAL
AS BULLOQzER
Assistant City Attorney Appears
In This Role, According
To Affidavit.
lEGEBRETSEN'S STIFF REPLY.
Ui, Neglect Was IN Failure 60 Set an
Marin Clock Under sleeping
Fcgul Guardian.

n hos taken James lngebrctsen. the
ATTORNEY whom II. J. Dininny brought
forward 20 serve as scapegoat for his
ouu neglect In failing TO take advan-
taea of his legal rights in the damage
st against the city a very short
l,ne.h of time 70 prepare a sun reply.
delivering ga return a serious charge
against the assistant city attorney.
Tho reply makes a much more serious
orIfef against Ogden Hiles man. than
G-I.r's man made against Inuebre TO-
ON. Do Is that he has used the pres
tH and supposed power OF the city
attorneys office as club over the head
o. I- bretaen TO force him to take
q certain action The club was raised
f the form OF threats that fl carried
out might have had "a serious result
upon Nr Ingebretscn's future, provid-
eli Daiuny could have welded the
rover Doe suggested he possessed iu
uatne the threats.
Tine charge IS contained in the fol-
lowing language from Mr.. Iugebret-
st0 reply filed IN the Third District
COURT.
Tile Diuinny) stated that if would
n.. slcu the stipulation he would re-
nHato by forever refusing 10 DO me any
would publish me before the bar as am
unfair attorney"
FAILED TO WAKE HIM.
The trouble Is over a damage suit
filed against the city by Geo. L. Hem
dan, Iugebretsen being his lawyer a
judgment was rendered lon Hendou's
favor, and Dininny let the time fnr APP
peal lasse Now his affidavit. filed
flrH 81
throw. the blame on Ingebretsen for
not setting of an alarm ciosk under
him and waking him up C. the fact that
his office duties were not being attend
li 20.
Il do solcmnlv aver" declared Mr.
WgchretSeu that any mistake mad
VertanCc or neglect on the part of Din
iuny iu taking action with reference 20
the said bin Of exceptions was not oc-
cgsionCd by any act or word on sug-
Sestion Of mine"
The onidayit replying 10 the man
who hopes to sit IN ogden Files' high
ulace with nothing 10 do hut watch an
assistant work. is as follows.
james Ingebretsen being first duly
sworn. deposcs and says; 81 am one
81 the attorneys for the plainun IN
me above entitled action, and as such
] make this affidavit IN opposition TO
the motion herein made and pending
ON the part Of the defendant IN OBJ
tain certain relief in respect 10 set
thing the bill of exceptions herein.
REFUSAL TO SIGN.
ION or about the 18th day Of June,
1907, / was engaged In the prepar-
ation Of a brief in the state supreme
count library. While sitting at
liable reading. II. j. Dininny, one OF
the attorneys for the defendant here
In
table at which 1 was sitting, and
placed ON the table proposed bill OF
e. sceutions IN this cause. lie called
nv attention TO the fact he had pre-
pared a stipulation In the words ana
figures set forth IN his affidavit herein
med. and asked me to sign that sup
ulCtiJ-.
u distinctly and expressly told him
that would not. QsD), because Dir
hoppaugh was associated with me IN
the Ca Sc and / desired TO consult him
before entering into any stipulation,
and. ,1nd). because since my expert
ence o. the case OF Bryant vs.. kunNle,
i had determined never TO sign any
stipulation IN the form proposed by
said Diniuny fov the reason IL nigh;
l,c claimed that such a stipulation
woul waive all errors or irregularities
that might arise after the date of said
stipula ton as well as before the date
thereof lie then said that his only
purpose ina having the stipulation was
To save the trouble of serving notice Of
the settlement Cl the bill. and also
that certain exhibits might be included
in the hu. ] tCld him that in connec-
ton With the Bryant case 1 had al
ready discussed the matter of sign
ing stipulation with MI Hoppaugh.
and hc disappcoyed Of this practise.
and 1 did not think he would consent
10 vars IL ga this case. but that he mad
suggested "a form OF a stipulation thai
very likely We could use in this cass
and That would accomplish every pu~-
pose that he (uinnny) sought
That stipulation ] said. rs one
that we have no amendments 10 pro-
pose, ana OF course ] would add to
tina, the fact that the exhibits might
Dee treated A. "a part OF the bill He
then slid. II seems TO mo that such
"a stipulation viii accomplish all
want ! SAID, Yes. the statute pro-
viGes that where no amendments are
proposed the I'm may bee settled
without notice He then said. VERY
well, you take the bin and look Il
over, and II you hud that you have no
amendments - propose indicate that
fact on the bill. and the further fact
that tie exhibits may be treated as
part OF the bill and ! win call at your
office within few days aud get a.
This d agreed 90 DO and this is an In
subsistence or eject or I'm any manner.
TINT Z d.d tgrrs 90 do.
This converse tion occurred as