New-York tribune., 1910-04-13
HARTR|DGE CASE TO Jury
Sealed Verdict To Be Returned
This Morning.
MRS. .THAW ILL:NoT IN COURT
Iudre Holt in Charge Tells Jury
Few Lawyers Ever Made
Fee of s125,ooo.

,--f~o-s " Hartridres suit for ss4ooo
-,,,sel fees against Mrs. Mary N0pleT
-,,su- fo- services in the trial = her son,
,sa--,- a. Thav, for the murder of stan
,ors White went 10 the Jury last evening
a. .,e r-nired states Circuit court. With in
s,,,,~fiors 90 return sealed verdict this
--o-rine Judge Holts charge, which o.
,.,-,es more than an hour analyzed the
,slre ~ legal services, end st one point he
aid referring 70 the total 81 the charges
,. flsrt-idge not all included I'm his suit
because paid
..--i,e-e arc few lawyers who ever made
&c r.-re a fec as s125.00o. and few ever
ea-r rs much"
~ she declaration by one of the plain
,,rs witnesses that he had discovered a
.a,- ground OF defence. that of temporary
INSANITY. Judge Holt said;
There was nothing novel about the ten
-.o-ery insanity theory. II was used in the
s,-t-oe and Robbins cases yesrs ago, and
is merely sertimertsl nonsense. II is an
e--,,fora' and foolish ides, this sudden and
instantaneous insanity.
~-rsw and Mrs. Thaw were not present
a.. -,,--+ Al any -irne of the dsy. The son
49, been taken back to Mstteawan and
Mr. Ttaw had accompanied him. intend
i-r boz return iu the morning. But sudden
r--e-s prevented this. and she sent a tele-
--a-r message of apology 10 her counsel
ard tle court The summing u2 of counsel
occupied rho morning session.
D. Latin KeToCE Mrs. Thaw's counsel
charged HartridEo with having expended
.,..-a, Cor T,4vy without authorization. or
Dis -esrfryirg to having visited women 40
i-9rsr-o thern against giving adverse tes-
ltr.7ry. rhe counsel said
.Do you suppose that If he had told the
-----7ft-ea on character when he applied
s.- adm .ssior 10 the bsT that he intended 10
s- follow his profession. De- would ever have
been acceTte5e'
Tho counsel for Mrs. Thsw rropounded
ti-ee questions 10 me iury. questions which
D. said ir was for tho Iurymen 20 answer.
Ur.,r.r .here was any legal obligation on
-'-. part ~ Mrs ThaW FOR any claim made.
-re value of tho services, and Tie kind of
services q lawyer may charge for and re
cover Then be said that IL was his view
-fs+ 10 would have been more valuable for
T7u ta have paid Hsrridge $4,000 20
keep away from tho case.
William r. Wider for Hsrtridge. out
rres tre d.fic,Iliies tho latter was under
'r t-o murder trial and again in This suit,
srI Irer taking The services performed IN
trs former WITH tho Testimony Of witnesses
recording the value - tho services. contend
o. tr4f tho charges were not eNo-bitant N
srr particular
T.Hrr Holt ~harCr dv-elt on tho p hsence
c's ur.-rer agreement by Mrs Thav. 20 ne
r.sponsinfs for her sons debts prior 70
August H. zoos. which. he ssid rrecluded
re.---r-. fo~ eert1oas before that period. and
tH.-r was nothing ~ indicate Hsrtridge's s
-'at~ aCaius' Mrs Thsv-. no hin or aEres-
-er- .rfH Tnsu won't ir-o bankr,Iptcy.
raF4~ ~.7rDc rho value oF fine service. Jud e
H-r r-f-rrei fo fhe fec rrreiy~d bv H.ord
7.r-... tne tof7l for ono soar -ha- % 1922.
-ar-.r been aborf 500. 600 And Lord Rus
e. frr court pointed oIt WAS for many
-..-- trr leading advo~at. iu England or
fHr charges for ei1o0ciug women. judge TEol+
ssI1 whore was nothing inherently probable
M I~vv ver'e 0ofnR such work IN the bill
oi particulars HartridEo charges S5O. 600 for
,r. foregoing
HT' e0urf declared that the evidence as
'o n'7t the money ln many instances was
paid f0r Was vague. and that some of the
r.a -Ees were ob.traordinarv and uuhcard Of
y losing Dr. said that even if Thaw knew
shH.t tr1 cNpe1ditures IL did NOT make his
mother responsible FOR them unless Il had
-eru shown thar she knew about them AMI
bed ratified Them. As 10 Thaw's testi-
mo-r. Judge Holt said that. in taking into
consideration mis- insanity. the fur, could
-r.c-' 81 81 b. saw n.