Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-12-13

The attorneys employed for the liti-
giants in the Woodbury. Click case, in
which Judge Bradshaw gave an opin-
ion Saturday, view the effect of the
opinion in a decidedly different light,
and the statement made of the result
OF the case in the Times-Republica
Saturday has been assailed by the at
torneys for the defendants principally
on the ground that the side was not
accredited with a distinct victory,
which it claims.
On the other hand the attorneys for
the plaintiff says that the T.-R. report
was substantially correct.
Defendants Exceptions to Story.
The exceptions taken by the defense
In the news story printed in these col
umns relative TO the case, are set
forth in the following communications:
Editor Times Republican: Your
Saturdays statement of the decision of
Judge Bradshaw in the Woodbury.
Click case is so misleading that we
ask you TO publish this correction. The
case is of some Importance and has
excited quite a degree of interest and
your readers are entitled to know the
situation.
1--WE assume that the account pub
lished Saturday was obtained from the
attorneys for the plaintiff, F. J. Wood
bury. The same was not obtained from
us-and you did not publish Judge
Bradshaw's decision as the record
shows it. We have no complaint of the
plaintiffs attorneys minimizing defeat,
as that is the constitutional right of
losing litgant. But the facts are these:
ION Oct. 10, 1907, F. ]. Woodbury.
fled petition against the defendants,
asking judgment against Charles
Click. c. j. Lander and the Holland
Land and Lot Company on FIVE prom
issory notes for s23.S2o1s. The court
refused any judgment on the notes,
and found for the defendants and
against the plaintiff
I'm the same petition an accounting
was asked for against T. j. Fletcher.
The court refused TO order any ac-
counting
in the same petition it was asked
that certain insurance on the life of
notes, said insurance amounting t,
$4,000. The court refused to order the
insurance applied
This is what the plaintiff sued for
and on each and every claim the plain
tiff lost.
THE court at the end of two years
litigation and after trial, 'dismisses
the plaintiffs petition for want o1
,jofa
All the costs except some Sc copy fees
are some costs.
I'VE think that the defendants won
when, after all this, the plaintiff is dis
missed out of court and fails on every
point in his case-yet your paper states
Neither side wins" and Neither side
has a victory
you must remember that the de-
PENDANTS were forced into court They
did not begin this law suit
plaintiff fails on every point in hi!
petition yet you say the decision i:
a judicial dog falr-whatever that is
If SO, we will always be satisfied witt
a dog fall But did not your sportins
editor get mixed up when he attempted
to report legal proceedings? When thu
L
hour, your paper did not say it was {
dog fall'-you said Turner wins
Plaintiff failed to throw US after a tw,
years bout, and the referee decided thu
match in our favor and gives US tn
winners share of the gate receipts
yet your aper says it is a dog fall
"Your paper states that TO all in
tents and purposes the status of tn
before il was tried We say that plain
tiff, having brought suit on these notes
and the court having found against hin
and for the defendants, that the plain
tiff is down and out unless he ap
peals. He has had his day in court H
can't bring another law suit in tn
hope of doing better next time. Their
must be and is an end to litigation, an
that end is reached when the cour
finds for the defendants.
you paper states the decision leave
the case open to be retired in the dis
trict court In this you are mistaken
The only thing the plaintiff can do
appeal or quit.
your paper states the attorneys ir
terested did not know what course
pursue BY this you must mean the al
tOIHeyS LOT tI4e LUZ VIC 6iAc
exactly what to do.
''But without following the matte
further, we assume that neither yo
nor the public is much interested
what we think-and we do know thu
the public would like to know jul
what the decision Of Judge Bradsha
is, that it could not possibly learn fro
your account of Saturday last.
1--WE do not care to discuss or qua
red with your paper over what Judt
Bradshaw said-unless you would gi'
us the space to print his whole opinio
We were present and know what
said, and you had no reporter prese
during the greater part of his ruin
We are content with the written reco
of his decision, and attach certffi'
copy of the same
1--WE ask you to publish this lett
and Judge Bradshaw's decision, tn
the public may know the facts.
every truly yours,
BoARDMAN & LAWRENCE
Judge Bradshaw's Minutes.
The minutes made by Judge Bra