The Washington times., 1914-06-05

! at that timer" asked Chairman McCoy,
| II had not personal or professional
! acquaintance with him
Were you satisfied with his appoint
ment?'
Why? WI =, Did you want It YOURSELF
NO sir. / was urging tine appoint
ment of Mr. Reside
Did you hear any objections to Mr..
| Reeside?''
No sir
1T was universally approved"
Other Names Suggested.
NO sir II Mr.. Reeside was appointed
the court could not have appointed all
the others who wanted it
Where was the objection?
'"Theh only thing that could be taken
as objections was the suggestions oil
other names for the appointment
How long have YOU known Mr.. LAM
bert and Mr.. Lester?'
81 had known Mr.. Lambert before
| began the practice of law. He is related
to me by marriage. ! have known MI
Lester for about twelve years.
What do you know of their reputa-
tions as attorneys
81 would rather not answer that
question"
But want you to answer It"
well, l would say not of the high
| est -
"Where have you heard that
Pretty generally. in discussion OF
the bar
Can yon specify. anybody"
Il don't know as can give any
| names"
''But want you to give names of
some one?".
IF you will give me a city directory
can get some
when you give us some names we
will give YOU a directory.
II want to say in qualification of that
statement that the only reference l
have heard was that they appear In
newspaper references to their cases.
In other words, they try their cases
in the newspapers?
Yes, that is all l meant / heard"
Refers to Receivership.
In questioning Assistant Clerk of the
Court Frank w. Smith, Attorney Oar
lirgton late yesterday afternoon brought
out further details of Justice Wright S
connection with the receivershtp of the
First Cooperative Building Association.
of Georgetown.
Mr.. Smith said there were many attor-
reys and others in Justice Wright S
court when the appointment of Frank p.
Reeside, and Attorneys Lester and LAM
bert as the original receivers was set
aside. He said he recalled some one ex-
pressing qualification to the court for
later appointing William E. Ambrose as
receiver.
In referring to the attorneys originally
concerned in the receivership, Mr.. Smith
said he had heard their action chdrac-
terized as back door practice.
Attorney Raymond B. Dickey detail
ed his knowledge of the receivership
matter saying the action of Attorneys
Lester and Lambert in getting the re-
ceivership order from Justice Gould
had been the source OF chagrin to him
and to others. He said ne expressed
Indignation at the hearing before Jus
tic. weright at the time the setting
aside order was Issued, but he respond
ed in the negative when asked by
Chairman Mccoy II the real reason for
the chagrin and indignation of attor-
neys' was not because they failed to be
appointed receivers.
Resides Qualifications.
Chairman Mccoy asked the witness
if Mr.. Reside. one of the receivers
named by Justice Gould. was not By
common consent eminently fitted for the
appointment.
"Yes, know of nothing against him. +"
Mr.. Lambert and Mr.. Lester. the
other two receivers proposed. were men
of the best reputation and standing at
the barr"
And did Understand you 10 say
these two had put something over
on Judge Gould2'"
Il was constituting the language of
another attorney" said MIR. Dickey. Il
do not like to interpret another mans
me-"
DO you or did you coincide with that
language, but the question was asked
impression|'
Il believed Mr.. Lambert and Mr.
Lester had misapprehended the exi-
gency existing. 1 still think there was
no exigency calling for the step taken
"Did you on July 9. 1905. know the
facts upon which Judge Gould acted?"
No
did You therefore entertain any
opinion on that date as to whether he
was justified in issuing the order?'
He Explains His Opinion.
Not having any knowledge of the
facts upon which he acted, ! could not
have held an opinion as TO the propriety
of Judge Gould's action
Mr.. Darlington asked If orders such
as issued by Judge Gould ARE orders
of the Judge or of the court?''
They are orders OF the COURT said
Mr.. Dickey.
Was there any question as to Mr..
Ambrose's standing and competency
Wnen ne was dpPo'hIeo: dSheu MT.
Darlington.
None, whatever" said Mr. Dickey
Have you ever heard it claimed that
the attorneys to the original bill end
for the defendant can go and get an
order without notice TO intervenors?"
No"
Should there have been any diff
Guilty in getting you notice Of their
intended action?" asked Mr.. Darling
ton.
No. my office was open at all times"
Were any of the attorneys except
Mr. Lambert and Mr.. Lester in favor
of Spholding the original order ts
July 80"
II think they were the only two"
Mr.. Mccoy again took UP Mr.. Rec
sides qualifications.
Have you ever. had occasion to re-
gret he was not appointed receiver"
he asked.
Administration Satisfactory.
No"
The administration has been salts
,fectory?"
80 far as ] 8rr concerned"
Put your interests were wiped out.
anyway, in the beginning, were they
not?"