The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-06-23

! and while he WAS with me he paid no rent
and l became surety for his board and
I lodgings.
II wish to say in a genera, way that
| Mrs Watson swore OH the trial that she
/ never made a contract OF any kind what
soev.r with Mr. Sulzer and my very
strong recollection is that she swore she
| never talked with him In her life. I am
! aware that Judge Lacombe has a diner
/ ent recollection. but 1t must be remem =
bered that he has no notes and therefore
is dependent entirely upon his recollection
as to what occurred at the trial and that
was many years ago.
| II don't know that 1t was ever con
tended by anybody that the petition Of
fered was ever presented to the court.
/ II was however. presented to the District
Attorney Of the United States for the
/ district In which the cause was tried.
one thing is settled. the petition was
offered to the District Attorney and "A
copy was sent subsequently by him to
| Mr. Stickney together with the letter.
both Of which have been published in most
/ OF the newspapers
/ Petition Not . Forgery.
Therefore the petition Ia not a forgery
! and the letter In also genuine and 10 no,
! in any sense fake. That was all tina,
! II was intended to prove BY the petition
/ and the letter and Mr. Plumiey has in
dorsed every statement Of mine In that
/ respect. What became Of that original
petition is and may perhaps remain quid
obscurum forever,
Now. Mr. Sulzer. II seems. has a wrong
! conception of my relations to the case.
/ IL Is true that the Hrst trial came on
before Justice Van Brunt and that Mr..
| Newcombe and Mr. Auerbach appeared
! in the case Mr.. Newcombe for long
: time after this trial employed me in very
i importan; litigation and the relation be
! tween US continued until his death Both
/ MIR. Newcombe and Mr.. Auerbach retired
| from the case because they believed IL
| could not be won and they believed that
, Judge Van Brunts decision could not be
reversed
! Mr.. Sulxer states that for the office
: rent he did legal services drew legal
papers tried cases and such things as
J that He certainly never did tina, for
me and want to say here that Mr. Sui
Ger never advanced one penny in the
/ Mary Maud Watson case either for ex.
I penses or any other purpose
did No work on Appeal.
Il have already ssio that he was ip
, no pecuniary position to do that sort N
! thing. and II he obtained any money from,
his mother he never put II into that
case, and | repeat that he canno, prove
that he ever paid dime toward the
I expenses in that case.
He never did any work on the appeal
from Judge Van Brunt's decision. He
never prepared y single paper on the ap-
peal and he never made a brief on the
appeal | argued the appeal upon a brief
prepared by myself and the case was
reversed before the General Term and q
new trial was ordered. Mr.. Sulser cannot
prove In any court Of Justice that he pre-.
pared brief or did any work on that
appeal
He never asked me what thought
was fair lie never asked me and
never said would leave II to him and
he never asked me II thought 10000
was fair as his share for everything. and
he never said that was satisfactory. be-
cause no such conversation ever occurred
and he never swore to any such con.
versation on the trial.
Il never promised him that he would
get $4,000 az his fee. because that Is
simply preposterous. And It was never
agreed TO and corroborated by Mrs. Wat.
non. as he stated. She denied In court
that she ever made him any promise
whatsoever and he never produced a wit
ness In court to prove that she cor
rOborRted II.
"Mr Suiser says that he knew nothing
about the settlement OF the case. and there
was no reason why he should know or
be consulted about It, because he was
not in tho slightest degree interested In
the settlement. never told him that
he would have to get his money from
Mrs. Watson. that that was a part Of the
settlement. never told him anything
about the settlement whatever. II was
no affair which concerned him.
He first asked me for $500. That
refused. He then made q claim OF
$4,000 on me. which ne said ne was
to give to some witnesses In the case
! simply told him such q thing could no,
be thought Of
James C. Carter 10 dead and much ID
made BY Mr., SulEer OF the fact tina,
he was witness In his favor. will
tell you how that is done. He was called
as an expert witness. and an expert wit
ness is called on to estimate the value
Of services II proved, The witness Is
asked II the lawyer did so and 80 and
performed such and such services. what
were those services reasonably worth
but the trouble with Mr. Suffers case
was that he did not prove the value OF
any services
"PushinK Mature Of the Man."
Mr. Sulzer's coming into the cast
shows the remarkable pushing nature OF
the man, He was In my Office and after
: he left he went with Henderson and bou
, the time Of the second trial before Judg,
, Lawrence he came to me and said
i am young man making my way ant
/, II ] can be associated In such a case a,
this II will give me prestige in my
I. profession and win he Of great service
to me, would like to come In there
. with YOU, and II can he of any as
sistance during this trial will do SO.
, ] sa'd--naturallA, ! wanted MIN to ge
along We'll. come along and sit dOwr
!, here with me. And believe then as nov
that he had cNtraordinary facility nj
getting IN III" newspapers. aud he sol
his name mentioned ~ "rc nf tho at
tornCys IN the ,ase
He claims that he consulted JOSEPH
II. ChestA ~, Cheats statss that hs hAl