The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-04-16
INGRAM SUSTA|NS
GOVERNOR CASE
Farmer Loses Damage Proceed
ing Against Virginia
Executive.
COULD ONLY RECOVER s.
Under Court Ruling Fee Paid
Attorney the Only Proxi-
mate Issue.

Judge Ingram In the Law and
Equity Court. yesterday sustained the
demurrer to the declaration In the suit
OF John H. Farmer against Governor
William Hodges Mann, thus practical
ly throwing the litigation out OF court.
unless nm appeal from the ruling
of Judge ingram Is made TO the
Supreme Court of Appeals. The ac-
tIon OF the court was taken after full
argument by both sides. Farmer hav-
ing been represented by William L.
Royal. and the Governor BY Richard
Evelyn Byrd and Scott. Buchanan s.
Cardwell.
The case goes back to the days when
Judge Mann was practicing attorney
fn Nottoway county. and there is little
conflict over the essential facts. Far
mer asserts that he went to Judge
Mann's Office and consulted him as to
certain business transactions with the
Akera Lumber Company, paying him q
fec. He acted on Judge Mann's adj
vice and was sued by the lumber com
pany. lost the suit. and was seriously
damaged financially. lie asserts that,
10 his great surprise. Judge Mann APP
peared as attorney for the AkerS Lum-
Der Company. the inference being that
he had not been loyal to his client
Governor NInnn's Answer.
In Governor Mann's answer to the
declaration 1t Is stated that he was on
one occasion consulted by Farmer as
40 certain business transactions; that
no gave his opinion as to certain legal
rights, collected fee of 50 for his
services, and the transaction ended
then and there.
Later Judge Mann was retained as
counsel for the Akers Lumber Com
pany, and In course of that employ
mont. he did bring and prepare to pros
ecute suit against Farmer. When his
attention was called to the fact that he
had once been consulted by Farmer In
regard TO the Same mattcr-a tran5ac-
tion which had escaped his mind at the
h time-he at once withdrew from the
I case, and another attorney appeared
f, for the Akers Lumber Company in trial
!, Of it's suit agains Farmer. In which
J tile lumber company won.
The action of Judge ingram in de-
claring in effect that the declaration
I, presented no legal ground for suit Is
approved by many attorneys who have
watched tho case with interest Had
the decision been otherwise, 1t would
not have been a far cry to the view
that an attorney was financially. re-
sponsiblo If his client lost his suit
through poor advice. or n. lack of full
appreciati ton Of all the points involved
in the transaction. Judge Mann's eloc-
tion to the governorship since the
transaction complained of has given
prominence 10 the litigation.
Could Only Recover s5.
Mr.. Royal made the usual motions
asking time in which either to per-
feet an appeal or to Ale an amended
declaration re-entering the, suit. The
decision of Judge ingram was merely
that the declaration as presented gave
no good and sufficient ground for ac-
ton. AS the case stands, the action
having been in assumpsit on all al
4 legged agreement whereby Governor
Mann undertook to represent Farmer
I'm an expected lawsuit, the only dam
ages that could BIO recovered under n
jury verdict would be the SIS foe
paid, which Is not claimed OF sued for
in the; declaration. The suit was for
damages In the sum of $4,000.