The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-04-13
COURT HARSH TO PARTRIDGE
LAWYER MAD Va BUSINESS 70
VINE TINE TENDERLOGN.
Ilas FAm0as BraInstOrm DefeAee Ne LAKE
Was sllly NSnssase asa Net " en- NSvel
wen Paid ns6Sre se SseSi Ter @OA.-
OOo Nerc-sealed VerSalsa Orderea.

scaled verdict vas ordered Yesterday
in the case % clifford ". Hartridgs who
sued Mrs. Mary C. Thaw in the United
States Circuit Court 60 recover s0t.OOO
a. a balance due for professional services
rendered In Harry X. Thaw's first trial
for the murder Of stanford White. Judge
Holt todd the jury in his charge that
SlO3. OOO had already been paid TO the firm
10 Hartridge a Peabody. % which 81 900
was for expenditures made in the prepare
tons for the FIRST trial and sc. OOO for. the
personal services Of counsel.
, IL you think. gentlemen said he.
that Sa2 40 IL all that Mensra. HartRidgs
and Peabody were entitled % for thetr
services. Why. that ends the case and you
should hiring in a verdict TO that eject
Judge Holt charged that Mrs. ThaW
cannot be held responsible for esther
services OF expenditures between June -.
IRoS. the day after the tragedy. and
August /. 1919 the date when Mrs. Thaw
H. alleged to have taken over the charge
of her sons uase unless IL proved that
she contracted 60 retain Hartridge h
Peabody. II ere was no evidence intro
duced Ia prove the existence % any such
contract except Harsridge's statement
that Their. was an oral agreement This
Mrs Thaw denied. The fact that Mrs.
Thaw paid out money Co meet hills IL no
proof that she was under legal obliga-
tons to go on paying indefinitely. nor
was a regular hll ever rendered to her.
Moreover. said Judge Holt, there u moth
ing To- indicate that any claim was made
against Mrs. Thaw until after Harry Tbaw
had gone into hankru ptcy. The jury
must draw its own conclusions from the
circumstance.
az the expenditures az detailed in Hart
ridges hill ~ particulars Judge Holt todd
the jury 10 was for them To decide which
were tO he retained and which to be
thrown out. IL MAS his personal opinion
that s52 ,0sO was AN extraordinarily large
amount for legitimate expenditure. Tie
thought that ~ OOO paid To Mr.. Peabody
by Hartridg~ "a reimburse him for en-
IDsnditures should not be allowed. He
would also exclude the stOO charg" for
telephone service which he thought
should Ia included in the charge Tor
Counss.l's services
That should no more h. chArge than
Office rental said the Court
Judge Holt didn't think that It WAS
professional service to get up thsaiTical
performance to illustrate a possihle jIIsti-
hcation for homicide As for the extra
time put in 10y Miss hor'ian, Mr.. Hart
ridges SO week stsnographeT. Tor which
she charged s. ALI hour. the court said
the claim should to thrown out
stenographer services should b~ paid
for by her employer unless othsr~i--
stipulated.
In regard 10 Hartrids,e' : .hisrvi.~s with
women of the Tenderloin Judge Holt Sas
particularly outspOk-n.
This till IL particulars shows that
night after night MIR. Hnrtrldgr went
uut To interview women and spent any
where from 50 Ia upward Of $40 In buy
ing food wines a. And tipping waiter
presumably lnterviewiDk ueS set 81
women every night for Iss nights The
first question to be askesi Ia my itllnd, -
Sh-ther the payments ''nutn-rats-l here
we're ia reality made II ~ fur you. gen
tlsmstl. "a ds.cide that. hut such = claim or
lts face 10 highly lmprop~r. There ~ Ia"
clear proof IL what OsHur red ~ What
vas gained ia il''-s. interviews.
On CrUs=-s ANIMATION Mr hArtridE-
sad that IN one 81 thess. nocturnal inter
views he secured from one WOMAN the
whip Nlth Which IhAW had bssatsn hsT
and others and paid h-T s'OO
I'm this ball Oi particular. said the
Court L lind an item for 1855 for -s-cur
ing the whip from woman Mr Hart
ridge has said 70 ~ the sane woman
lie doesn't explain how he got the whiI
from the woman. nor. indecds how the
woman happened TO have the ~hip 10
her possession IL might y. -'IppOsssi
that ths. psr-on who used the ~hIp would
10 IA pos-e-sion 81 u Now. g,-ntl@Ineu.
u you find that Hnv II the items 10 this
tail Of particulars we're falsely made up
AMI itisflte.ll YOU f'au NutoN thAAN tAt
Hartridge'z testimony "a this ounneC-
tiou
Eyen n Harry Thaw Anew Az about
HaTtrdge making Those = NF~uditures. the
court charged Il ddn' make his
mother Responsible for them and a:
ie~t the e''idenc, introduced To show
yshat th. money ~a- really paId out
for - very vague.
What VAS the purpose ~ king
these payyme9,- II The ,5"E we're Is'd a..
ubi--ot that j. Ia Say. "a kesp peOpls
from te-ttfying against Ihaw the pay
'nent- wer. Illegal and constitute an
uNenor 20 otstruCt cOrruptly the course
Ut ilsti,r Whether HaTtTidgs was author
l>'-i to make ths-e expenditure or
not court ~ justice cannot give up
- tirue 10 deciding litigation VI persons
Engaged "a breaking the law
HartrdR-S claim It Si2j $50 iOT pro
i',-iphIl -..ryiC,s~ The Court regarded
.- "a pn~arrantanly large sum 10 chargr
very few lawyers arm that amount ~
q wear, he -trd Judge Holt cited The case
Of Sir harles Russell. the eminent kng
u-h htEr.t.r. Who's, largest fees ranged
from CIN"si 90 IssI - Eis.955 ia lss;
lud h- was the most distinguished adj
voCat~ ot hi~ time
The Jury. b" said. must take into aC-
count the importance 81 the -ervIcs
rendered. the character If the lawyer
and the amount OF work done. II might
te expected that MIR. Delmas. the chief
counsel for ths Thaws IN the first trial.
would receive a larger sum than the at.
,orney Of record. Sir. Delmas testified
that he received $50 .OOO
In referring to the statement Of Will
am Rand, JT that Har1ndRe's services
were worth sIJs O0. Judge Holt confessed
2 that he didn' { UNDERSTAND hov Mr.. Rand
figured n ont. sven assuming that Hart
ridge worked every day for "a year AZ the
rate 81 SIG or sl25 - day. He said he
~o,Ild let the Jury do that ~ IL could.
Jaines W Osborns's statement that
Hartridge ia mis- opinions had earned
ret wcen si2s. 90 and slJO.OOO was equally
I lneNplicable TO the Court. What Mr.
O-torne regarded a. MIR. HAr ridges
most valuable service. that 81 originating
the -hralnstorm- OF temporary insanity
theory 81 defence. was 10 Judge Holt's
mind sentimental nonsense and an
emotional and frivolous idea.
There was nothing novel about H.
| he added Everybody ~ familiar with
I the S,cklss and Robinson cases.-
The summing zap address, 70 the
I Jury we're made by l.. Lahin kellogg
/ Tor Mr. Hartridge Mr. kelloRg's ad-
dress was an attack on Mr. HaTtrIdge'a
nrpfpa.tt Onal integrity a. well As 4 bitter