The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1914-12-16
sUcH MAS BROUGHT OUT IN svI.
DEVICE IN ATTORNEYS
CASE YESTERDAY.
Further Sensations Followed on See.
ond Day Of Interesting Trial.
Jury Yet Unable to koree.

I0IcTGHrln0
Jury Vet Unable to Agree.
To see the fondest hopes of collect
down to s275, and then have the Jury
disagree. on the face OF Il seems dis
couraging. but nevertheless this hap
pened yesterday TO the law firm OF
Noyes & Ritz. Furthermore TO have
~ come out In court that $4,000 had
oeen realized on a 800 investment of
a client. 10 give him $500 and split
the other $500 even between two
men, would appear to bear the cog
nomen that Attorney John J. COMM
gave IL, "a crooked deal"
This Is the sum of the trial of the
$4,000 suit tried I'm circuit court
yesterday, styled s. NJ. Moves and
John III, Ritz vs.. s. W. Harper and
w. I. Handlan. In his closing argu-
ments Mr.. Conif attacked the bust
inferring that his behavior in the mat
ter of Charles NJ. Altmeyer. where
the alleged swindle was transacted.
was such as TO cast disrepute upon
the whole legal profession.
According TO the testimony OF Mr.
Ritz. the client. Mr.. Altmeyer, mad
been guaranteed Sl42 as principal and
interest In his part OF the suit STYLED
cyrus Huiing vs.. the National Tele-
phone company ana Charles NJ. Alt
II NdS Out luAl MI
hitz and John A. Howard. who was
formerly president OF the company.
worked together In the matter. How
ard working in consultation with
Ritz, while the latter took the brunt
OF the work in open court. Howard
playing the silent partner" as II
were. For this work the two men
received 81 400 each. Ritz saying that
his money was split four ways with
his oo-partners, Blackford. Beans and
bradshaw.
coniff Condemns.
Visiting attorneys yesterday threw
up their hands in holy horror when
they heard brought out directly in
court the charges made, or the testi-
mony In the case OF Altneyer. who
claimed he knew nothing OF any
wonder that the public looks down on
the lawyers profession when such
actions as these come out in court as
mas come out In this case
When court convened yesterday
Of Ritz & Moves. was called back to
the stand and recrossexamined. over
objections. he was compelled to an
, swer questions concerning his part
nership with Ritz. the other plaintiff.
He admitted that Ritz was with the
law firm OF Ritz. Blackboard. Beans a.
Bradshaw when the Atlmeyer claim
against the telephone company was
settled A motion to exclude was
overruled
Attorney Ritz then made an oner
to the court covering an alleged
transfer OF stock. bonds. an dcash Of
the National Telephone Corporation
TO the Continental company. The
Nationals share In the transaction
was about S12.O0O.0OO in stock ana
cash. turned over TO the other COM
pany for about $4,000. 900 in stock
and OOO 400 IN
Attorney Frank a O'Brien was
next called by the defense and told
Of having attempted to adjust
claim Of NOyes and Ritz against the
Z National Telephone Company and
about having taken up the claim OF
Charles Altmyer with MIR. Ritz. lie
said he understood that $1,000 was
paid for the ten shares OF stock
owned by Altmyer and that the firm
Of Noyes and Ritz was to receive 81
900 for services. allowing Altmyer
$1,000. a motion TO exclude the tes-
: timony was Ovcrruled.
Exchange Of Cash.
r. a. Howard the Nationals audi
tor. told Of a credit OF sos paid 10
/ Noyes and Ritz for securing the
charter lie told Of attempting TO
settle fee claim with Mr. Ritz and
that the latter refused 20 accept So
600. Later ne paid Mr. Ritz the
money which ne said included the
Altmyer claim. Mr. Howard said
that the check for the money was
paid 10 him by S. W Harper. but the
money was Cyrus ilulings lie had
the check cashed and paid Ritz.
Charles NJ Altmyer was the next
witness called and told OF holding
ten shares % the National stock ana
~ asking f1i2 for a settlement A
letter from Mr.. Ritz was introduced
and read saying. we are glad 20 in
form you that We got enough 10
compensate you IN the sum Of 5000
for your stock. and ourselves for our
services This H. supposed 10 be
The $4,000 received from Mr. r. a.
Howard
" e. Handian and = W Harper.
the two defendants. were next called
10 the witness stand and denied that
They had ever retained ritz and
Noyc7 a. their personal attorneys.
lhny said that the attorneys worked
Tor tho National Telephone Corpora
ion. Later Mr. Harper took tho
stand and corrected hls answer 10
read National Telephone Company
lhey denied any Individual claims
insisting that all had been settled.
J. " RITZ then took the stand In
rgbutial. upon bis own behalf lie
played tho part 81 attorney. client and
wines In speaking 81 the Altmycr
dgsl Do aaid, on direct examination
Do result % 10 was that Mr. Ait
myers stock was purchased b. Mr.
Howard and myself hut We
didn't want 90 lake title 10 the stock
De- Iuac We doubted whether We
would Do Iu a. rood n tacfiful posi-.
lion Ha We would be- N the title would
remain I'm Alfmycrs name. 20 We al
lowed The title % remain in Aitmver's
name and We guaranteed him that he
would b. paid whatever investment
and whatever interest and he brourhf
The stock In there an blank and deiiv-
cred ~ 10 uE. and then we vent ahead
and Med an anawrr or rather We hrsf
sent abrad ard made motion 10 dis-
niles ne biu. and The court decided