St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1912-09-28
SOLID FACTS ON CUES.
ton OF corpora
ton LAWYER. !"
These Are From the Records,
Which Don't Lie.---R Read
Them, and Ponder Well.

charitable toward the member of
his bar who is out for Congress,
and does not recollect that Mr..
Lewis is SO much Of a corpora
tion lawyer. He even finds it
hard to remember many contest
ed railroad suits filed by Mr..
| Lewis firm.
Has Judge B. H. Pavy forgot
ten that Mr.. Lewis firm filed
suit against the individual B. H.
Pavy for this very Texas & Pa
cifc branch, the O. G. & N. E.
Ry. Co.; that in behalf of this
corporation Mr.. Lewis firm also
filed suit against Mrs. Ida Veazie
Pavy, B. II. PAWS wife; that it
also filed suit against the con-
gregation Of ST. Landry's Roman
Catholic church, of which Judge
fB. Fl. Pavy is a large part, and
that it even filed suit against the
Sisters Mariantes of the Holy
Cross, who teach B. H. Pavy's
children. Has he forgotten that
for the same railroad, the firm of
| Lewis & Lewis filed suits in this
parish against Giles Higginboth-
am, Ludger Lemelle, Adam Gay,
Mrs. Aline William Howard, Miss
| Virginia Lastrapes, Mrs. Kath-
crime Goodloe, B. R. Splane, in
dividualIy and as tutor, Mrs.
Mary Giron, tutor, the Col. So.
IN. o. & P. R. R. Co., the M. L.
& T. r. r. & S. S. Co., the st.
Landry Cotton Oil Co., Victor
Jewell, Jos. Dubourdieu, F. E.
Creelman, F. E. Creelman Lum-
Der & Mfg. CO., B. Bennett ct
Eal., Jules p. Robin, tutor ct ais,
and Gustave Tujacques? Has he
forgotten that in behalf of an
other adopted branch Of the Tex
as & Pacific system, the Louisi-
ana East & West r. r. Co., the
firm of Lewis & Lewis sued in
that parish, Jean Bite. P. B.
Manuel, Fabius Fontenot, Val
mont Duplechain, Adraste Man
|uel, Laurent Young, Telemaque
Manuel, Gustave Fruge and
Christoyal Duplechain?
Many of these We're not long
contested. But they were suits,
and were filed not just for fun
or to make costs for the Court
officers, but because the railroads
were unwilling to pay what the
defendants considered the true
value of the lands taken from
them. That many Of the de-
PENDANTS gave up shortly after
the papers were served, and took
what the corporation authorized
their attorneys to pay, does not
show that they were satisfied,
but merely proves the rule that
the average man of moderate
means will take almost any kind
of settlement rather than employ
counsel and incur expense and
fighting a law suit which has at
the other end a corporation car
ing little for costs and having
specially trained counsel regular
hired by the year to attend to It's
business.
Yet even under these circum-
stances considerably more than
two were contested. Many Of
the records in the lower Court
are fat enough to indicate a hard
fight, and several went to the
Supreme Court. Among these
were the suits Of the O. G. & N.
E. Ry. Co. against the St. Lam
dry Cotton Oil Co, and against
Frank Dimmick, ct al, from the
District Court of this parish, and
from the District Court of Acadia
parish the suits of said company
against Geo. K. Bradford, and
the suit of Edward Daigle and
others, property owners and tax
payers of the 3rd Justice Ward
of Acadia parish, contesting the
collection Of a tax in favor of
said railroad corporation, and the
suit of w. E. Lawson and others,
citizens and taxpayers of Crow
ley, La, contesting the collection
of similar tax in favor of said
corporation. # out Of the multi
tude of suits filed by this rail
road in st. Landry, only two got
to the Supreme Court, it is likely
that almost as many were tried
for said railroad by these attor-
neys in the District Court of
Acadia parish, il we may judge
by the number taken to the Su-
prene court on appeal. They al
SO carried to the Circuit Court
of Appeals the Louisiana East &
West appropriation cases against
Jean Bite. P. B. Manuel and Ad-
raste Manuel, and the suit Of
Adam Gay against the @. G. &
N. E. Ry. Co.
And yet the charitable Judge
does not consider them corpora
tion lawyers. But he was not
yet on the bench when most Of
these cases were fled, and being