The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-12-06


and the taHpayers-r. A jennings dia.
approved. Cor three reasons
FIRST r. A. jennings and the News
want % Sc the Blount Construction
Company get the ts4 10000 from the
county ana ON ~ the taxpayers
pockets
Second. r. a. Jennings - su-c be-
cause the attorney employed % assist
the county aftorneT had q hard IN ew-
posing DR.. jennings en- hts AFFECT SER
witty o. the corporate interests during
The fght for the passage q amend
mcnts 90 the city charter % Pensa-
cola which would have given the city
the right 10 regulate me service and
the rates ~ thc public service cor
porationa in the Interest % the cen
sumers
Third r. a Jennings and the News
are sore because we Instituted suit
against "a for a client uho claims 20
have been Hbeled b a falae publlca-
ton Oh the News concerning him
This is itn method % getting even and
a. the same time serve Sc purposes
and bosses.
The motive behind the editorial N
the Evening News ~ Tuesday 10 ap-
parent upon Sc face and is contained
IN the foluWtnN expression. which Ne
quots verbatim
When this bir Fee - considered. rot
r. mention the cost ~ court. n seems
that the board could have conpro-
missed the case and saved the county
a considerable SUN
The present board ~ county com
rnissioners ne are advised. win never
compromises the case they advise as
H a
lest ditch ard that the Blount Con-
/ structiou Company viii never wits
/ their consent. set another dollar %
me taxpayerE' money for work claimed
| % have been done upon the counfy
/ ial building.
Although ire Hlount Coustrurtinn
Company claims that ths county - In
debtsd a. u FOR t1A000.00 for alleges
/ extras IN ths construction of this build
inE ths records and papers IA ths
I possession - ths county commission
/ ers show that thia company has ben
over-paid sone t26.n0o0 90 because ~
n'eeai claims raid that company ~
the previous board o. county commis-
sioners and FOR unfinished work and
/ Deductions and allowance due ths
/ county
Not only does the Blounf Canztruo-
| ton Company claim that the county
/ ewes q tstoo0 % for extras. but In
addition that company claims hat the
/ county 70 also indebted 20 o. for In
tsreaf and for delays In the oonHtruc-
ton o. the building. Just what these
sums VII aGEregats 70 is impossible
/ % sav. huf 81 ia somewhere between
go. 10000 and fb0.0en o.
The Evening News ssvs that the
county has q regularly employed coun-
| ~ ATTORNEY 81 $500 . month. who
| should defend the county m this suit
| without assistance N che county at
torney had nothing sise % 40. this
stassnaent might be reasonable. hut the
| county attcrney has other duties %
perform for ths board ~ county con-
rniasionarn. ne must ADVISE them rela
tive 10 AT matters ooming before them
upon which they desire hts advice and
be must represent the county IN al
suits brought against n. Just a. this
tirns en- county not only has on its
hands the important suit % thu Biount
Construction Company. but 81 also has
on SIS hands = suit brought BY the
city ~ Pensacola % recover tiS,o00oo,
A demurrer On the Blount Construction
Company case wep argued last satur-
day. and a brief must As filed az once.
and the nnit by the city 81 Pensacola
ufn come up for hearing before Judge
| Wolfe tomorrow. And Cor al this
| work. and FOR services IN defendinE
other suits against the county. and for
this tremendous responsibility. The
News thinks that SIS 90 per month e
/ sufacieut pay for the county attorney
and that he should have no assistance
straction Company Il represented ~
q arm % four able and prominent law
yers
The News also says that the fes %
Sc. 500 %. witch the county COMMITS
sioners contracted 20 paw the attorney
for assistance IN the Riount Construc-
tion Company case. 81 cx0rhitant n
is well known fact that the usual
Zee charged By attorneys IN ltEatet
cases t. 10 Per cent ~ the amount tn
VOWED for services IN the trial court.
and an additional Zee % e per cent
~ the amount involved 81 fhe event
the case 10 appealed n the usual fee
81 70 per cent had been contracted
Coz o. Tits case fha fee wouid have
been a. coo % az the least but the At
tornev employed CD assist ire county
attorney agreed for ths Zee ~ 81 see o.
Co represent thr county both IN tns
trial court and On ne appellate court.
. On tha case brought hy TIE Blount
Cons rurfi0n Company. and % assist
a. e suit 20 - brought b. the county
against ne Biount Coustraction con-
/. panv. 80 recover hack some So. oo0 90
claimed 40 have been WsEa'ly collected
ty that company
The Eyreninr News has also sndssv-
1red e. create ne impression thaf ws
are co-rsrfners The author - this
tnnueuto knew If Vas false when be-
wrote it and aufulig published whaf
~ kunu Co - false FOR ths purpose ~
deliberately mls'eadinE ne public
We make this statement ln sNnlana
fflon 80 frfn franHa rtion - that ere
pubic NAV know tha truth and wfli
, not he miaIed ~ tNs uilfuliy false
. statements OF Tire Evening SevN
n r REESE
JuTTS r. STOKES