The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1914-12-16
ATTORNEYS SPLIT PROFITS
OF SALE OF CLIENTS STOCK

4 mere wasn't anything In the motion %
Ihls with reference 10 the Huling VS..
telephone Company. in Federal
Divided Profits.
Furthermore. he said; Il paid. or
rather the firm paid. Mr.. Altmeyer
szvV, and the balance of II was d.
yided. Mr.. Howard got one-half. or
$l.4OO, and the firm of Ritz. Blackford,
BRADSHAW 4 Beans got the other half.
cent of that"
min:
Q. You swore a while ago. Mr..
kitz. that you and Mr.. Howard bought
tne Altmyer stock. and now you say
that the 81 500 YOU and Mr.. Howard
got out of the Altmyer deal was for
services YOU both rendered?
4 A That Is true.
O.. You got sl.400. or your firm
got $l.400 for its services in the Alt
myer case. and Mr.. Howard got the
true?
A. You can put it either way you
Q. You have made those two state
msnts TO the jury. haven't you? Now
winch one Is correct?
A. There is no conflict between
those statements
Adjournment was then taken until
O'Clock p. m.
Afternoon Session.
Nhen court reconvened At . O'Clock
me attorneys argued the instructions
before the Judge. He then instructed
the jury thai II they believed the
plaintiffs were employed by the de
PENDANTS. then they must find for the
plaintiffs; that the burden OF the
that they must prove BY the prepon-
derance OF evidence thar they rem
dered the services; that the jury
was the sole Judge of the case: that
In case they found for the plaintiffs
that u could not be in a sum greater
than 1915
Attorney Ritz. his partner not be-
ing present. opened the arguments
before the jury shortly after o'clock
He reviewed the case, saying that
there was not the slightest doubt that
the plaintiffs were employed by the
defendants. He drew attention 10
the testimony OF John A. Howard
saying that the plaintiffs had been
not been paid. Mr.. Ritz said that
Howard had succeeded TO a point
where Judgment could not be collect
ed against him.
Attorney Coniff then opened for
the defendants, drawing attention to
the fact that Ritz insisted he had
been employed by the defendants
Noyes and Howard said they had been
ana Handlan. Noyes, Ritz and Har-
per saying that they were not IL was
here he made his sweeping statement
concerning the swindling nature of
the Altmyer deal. He said: That is
the most shameless act I ever knew
TO be committed. Two attorneys col
lect $4,000 for a client. give him $500
and keep the rest In my practice OF
law ! have never known OF anything
more disreputable"
Mr.. Towards Statements.
Continuing. he said: Il will read a
transcript from Mr.. Towards testi-
mony; bis examination by Mr.. Ritz"
q. Now. there has been something
/ said about the Altmyer transaction,
in which the fees OF Noyes g. Ritz in
that transaction were paid by Mr..
! Harper and Mr. Handlan. What are
the facts about that. Mr. Howard?
A. ! have absolutely no knowledge
I OF that except that gained from your
self and Mr.. +. a. Howard had
nothing to do with Mr.. Harper or
. Handlan In that transaction.
q. .. Well. assume that none OF us
! bad anything 10 do with Harper or
4 Handlan except through F. a. How
ard. Who conducted the negotiations?
\. =. a. Howard. collected to.
/ Overruled.)
q. Whom did r. A. Howard repre-
sent? Collected. to- Overruled. OBJ
/ lection withdrawn
a. So far as ! know about II. y. A
4 Howard negotiated for Harper and
Handlan. and you. negotiating for
yourself. and both Of you talking TO
me in my presence concerning il.
I sometimes +. A. Howard talking to
me and sometimes you talking 10 me.
and sometimes we three talking to-
I gether: but my knowledge Is limited
70 what I learned in that way. Now
II you want nv answer to IL. with
] mnnHTufumHInn AU 10
give a.
q. Suppose you give IL TO US. then.
4. r. q. Howard represented that
/ Mr.. Harper and Mr.. Handlan we're
willing 10 make certain compromises
Q OF the Altmyer case but they desired
4 SO include In Il your claim for fees
| against them and me. the claims you
arc now suing for In this case That
was considered and talked Of on sew
eral occasions. You refused Co in
clude them. and whatever settlement
of that case was made with tho nm.
derstandlnE that you we're not com.
I promising your claim for these fees
you are now suing for. or that you
[ then threatened 10 sue for
q. DO you remember the amount
I they desired 10 have included
a. ! don't remember the amount
Vow. gentlemen 81 tho jury. Z feel
that this case has no place here
| Noyos should be suing Ritz for his
share OF the money cleaned from the
: Altmyer deal Men should not b.
b permitted 10 DO what these men are
trying 20 DO here. and don't imagine
/ YOU will"
Mt }. " llandlan then took up the
/ argument Tor the defendants. saving
, that the Jurors might live for times
I Immortal. but ln that time they
would always remember tho narrative
I ~ the way that Charles Altmvpr was
! done out Of biz money Ito said with
I the diacloeuref made in this trial that
I men would hesitate 90 70 into law.
I yer'q once for fear ~ suffering tho
same ~ Altmyer suffered He said
/ that u looked 20 him a. III tho nlain.
/ finf and defendants we're wrong.
I that tho plaintiff should b. NoVea and
fhe defendant Ritz. thar no emile vac
oriEinallr hrouFhf arainrt three mon.