Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1910-08-12
GOVERNOR MANN
WILL RESIST SUIT.
Threatened Suit Against Governor
An Old CAMPAIGN Issue.

Will De iSlI 10 the COuTlS WITHOUT IuTlHeT
comment by me. -
That was the manner in which Gov
ernor Mann discussed the anticipated
suit of J. H. Farmer, of Nottoway,
against him for alleged breach of con-
tract and consequent financial damages,
as he claims, resulting from said alleged
breach.
William l.. Royal. of Richmond, is
counsel for Farmer.
When it became known that the suit
was threatened, Speaker Richard Z.
Byrd at once called and volunteered his
services as counsel for Governor Mann.
and within short time former Speaker
William ID. Cardwell. of the law firm of
Scott, Buchanan & Cardwell, called and
offered his services and those of his as
sociates in case the suit is brought.
The Governor thanked the lawyers for
their services, and if the case comes to
trial it means that Mr.. Royal will be
opposed by an array of counsel that will
keep him busy. One thing is certain,
Governor Mann will fight the case to
the last ditch.
The case will be recalled by the gen
eral public. 1t was figured in the cam
paign of last year. The facts are about
rs follows:
In the summer of 1907 Judge Mann
was Consulted by Farmer in connection
with some lumber transaction he had
with the Akcrs Lumber Co. The Judge
advised Farmer as to his rights in the
premises, and was paid a fee of SIS for
the consultation. Farmer, when leav-
ing, remarked that if there was any
litigation he would want Judge Mann
to represent him in the case. Judge
Mann replied that he knew of no reason
why he could not represent him.
Some months later the lumber COM
pany brought suit againt Farmer over
tract different from the one he had
consulted Judge Mann about. Farmer
employed Mr.. Ely as his counsel. and
the Akers Lumber Co. secured Judge
Mann. The latter was seen by Farmer
and acquainted with the previous con-
versation. and though the cases were not
in any way related or connected, Judge
Mann retired from the case as counsel
for the Akers Company and refused to
accept any fee whatever for what he
had done.
The Governor says that Mr.. Farmer
paid all the fee that was charged for
that one case, and that the matter was
dismissed from his mind.
The case is unusual, and said TO be
without precedent in Virginia ju, is
prudence. 1t is known that Governor
Mann will contest every inch of the
litigation. He appears not in the least
worried over the matter, and declines
to discuss it in any way. leaving this
for the lawyers to do when the case shall
be called.
1t is Mr.. Royals intention to bring
the suit in the Richmond Law and Equity
Court during this week.
Farmer claims that he was bank
rupted by the refusal of Judge Mann to
act as his counsel. and claims that the
fee, So. paid by him in the first case
was with the understanding that he was
retained TO defend any suit that might
result from following Judge Mann s
advice,
In June. 1909, the Houston Record
Advertiser and some other papers pub
lished certain letters about this affair
prejudicial to Judge Mann's candidacy
for Governor. The true action and
intent of Judge Mann is set forth in his
letter to his clients. which was as
follows:
October Sth. 1907.
Akers Lumber Company, Inc,
Lynchburg, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
l have yours of October 7th, with a
copy of Mr.. Manson's advertisements.
In the last few days a complication
has arisen in this case which is very
embarrassing to me. 1t seems that
some time ago, Mr.. John II. Farmer
came to my Office and consulted me
with reference to a contract made be-
tween your Company and himself for
the manufacture of the Jennings tim
Der, some four or five miles from Burke
vile. He showed me the contract be-
tween you. which is similar in all re-
spects to the one we have to deal with
now; stated that you were not comply
ing with your contract, and that you re-
FUSED to advance the money for the cut
ting of the timber as you had agreed To
do, and that upon that statement and
reading of the contract, / advised him
that it was not binding upon him. OF
all this matter, | had absolutely no rec
objection at the time that you wrote me
about the Farmer case that we are
now considering. and did not know
anything about it until informed bv
Mr.. Ely, who is the general counsel
for Farmer. Understand, this case and
that case are totally different, but pre-
clsely the same questions arise in both.
When got the information from Mr..
Eby about the advice that | he'd given
Mr. Farmer, which, as before stated.
| had entirely forgotten, but upon which
he said that ne acted in the Jennings
cas-, was so situated in respect to
your case that was obliged to go on
Tor the protection of your interest. In
the meantime, however, | wrote to Mr..
Ely, stating the situation, and telling
him | was unwilling to do anything that
looked like bad faith to Mr.. Farmer.
and that If Mr.. Farmer said so would
give up your case when / could do so
with due regard to your interest. but
that / could not under the circumstan-
ces represent Mr.. Farmer in the len
nings case, if that should come To
suit. Mr.. Eby told me that Mr.. Far
mer would not require me to give nm
the case, but that he was very much
hurt because l did not see him when in
Burkeville few days since. l then