The record. [volume] (St. Maries, Idaho) 1913-1918, 1914-12-22
Councilman Talks
OF BedtOn Case
FAVORS SETTLING SUIT IF POSSIBLE
Believes That New Trial Will Only Add To- Expense
City will Have To Meet
Editor Records:

Might / make a Few remarks IN
your paper on the Beaton damage
case? The City Council hav vot-
ed to move for a new trial and to
appeal from the verdict. This
is done without any attempt to
settle the case. At the time
frs brought this case to the city
councils attention the case could
have been settled for less than
$4,000. The trial of the case
cost the City nearly nine hun
dred. Is this good business?
The City authorities seemed TO
regard this case as a holiday eX-
cursion. While the City author
tiles were spending their time
making fun of the merits of the
matter the plaintiffs were getting
ready for trial When the case
finally came to trial the City never
had a look in. The plaintiffs
lawyers had the case planned and
won before the trial started.
Nothing that could be called a
defence was offered by the City.
This case has been pending in
court about nine months. Now
that the trial is over and the City
so badly beaten that it should be
ashamed to hid up its head, the
city attorney comes forward and
says they have some new evidence
They had nine months to prepare
their defence and one day after
the trial say that they have dis
covered new evidence that will de-
feat the action in another rial.
The rial of this case cost the
city about nine hundred dollars.
Suppose the case is appealed to
the Supreme court and a new trial
granted. The second trial will
be as expensive as the first, and
with this new evidence, probably
more so. The appeal to the SUI
preme court will cost five hundred
dollars in lawyers fees besides
the other expenses and if the city
succeeds in gettineg the judg-
ment reversed and a new trial il
will in all probability get whipped
so badly that another new trial
will be asked, AMI more appeals
to the supreme court, and more
lawyers fees and more costs.
| would like to ask the citys
lawyers what their new defence
is. Do they expect to prove that
the Government Townsite is no
part of the town? In the nine
months this case was pending
why was not this new evidence
producer at the present trial?
Any one that heard the cas-
knows that the City never had {
show; that the plaintiffs had tn
cacsce won before the trial start
ed. The City's own lawyers ad
mitted that the only thing tha
surprised them was the amour
of he verdict.
l think that the taxpayer
should demand that this case b
settled before the City is bank
rupted, and that this money tha
is being paid for lawyers an
costs, be used to build and repai
sidewalks before we have anOthe
case on our hands worse than tn
first Nine hundred dollars wi
build a number of badly needle
walks and four hundred dollar
(the probable appeal costs) wi
repair a number Of walks.
Let's spend this money cleanin
up and lettering the town. tn
taxpayers should demand that "
spend less money for lawyers, an
more for town improvements.
a new trial is granted and il cOsi
as much as the first, the City wi
lose, even if a -erdict for on
$4,000 is obtained, as the add
lional costs will make it amour
to more than the present liabilil
Would business men condu
their own business on any sue
basis? Ibelieve the case shou
be settled.
WIN. BITEMA