Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1916-04-23
COURT SUSPENDS r. {.
WOOD FROM PRACTICE
IN SECOND DISTRICT
Continued From Page one.)

Continued From Page One.)
>>~--.>---~~~,,->~->->>
ser that such receipt was not pay
mcnt, as no consideration was given
for &C. II WAS obtained by shaw &
Company from Ernest Meyers and
given TO the Meyers Company to pro
tcet the Meyers Company against suit
by Ernest Meyers In case the Meyers
Company paid shaw & Company their
claim II was obtained from Ernest
Meyers and given to the Meyers Com
\ pany by shaw & Company on an
laRreement that the Meyers Company
would then pay Shaw & Company, but
the Meyers Company. after receiving
the receipt Of Ernest Meyers from
Shaw a Company. refused 70 pay the
claim Of shaw & Company, and no
consideration passed for this receipt.
The fraud or deceit practiced by the
Meyers Company upon Shaw q COM
pany Is not In this case except incl
dentally. and need not be considered
Mr.. wood, the attorney for the Mey-
ers Company, knew all these facts, as
IL apparent from the correspondence
which has been filed In this case. But
he knew that no value had been paid
for the receipt. He offered It in evil
dence, as proof Of payment as shown
By the excerpt from the stenogra-
| piers notes SET out above. The court
knew nothing about the circumstances
under which the receipt was obtained,
took II as a bona flde acknowledge
ment of payment in full, and directed
a verdict for the defendant.
THE defendants attorney, Mr.
Wood. urges upon the court that at
the time he made the assertion that
the defendant has pleaded payment
land tho receipt was offered as proof
Of payment. he was merely trying 20
overcome a technical objection TO It's
admission and not offering u as bona
| fide proof of payment, but the ex-
ccrpt from the stenographer's notes
bears no such construction and ne
such explanation was offered at the
time. The court presumed. and had
n right to presume, that the evidence
was offered az proof Of payment. as
counsel so stated.
''rhe motion for a directed verdict
made by the defendant contains as a
fourth ground the followingi
81. Upon the further ground
/ that the evidence shows that what
ever obligation did exist either to The
| Meyers Company or TO Shaw and
Company on the part Of the plaintiff
or to the plaintiff has been fully set
tied, satisfied and discharged Such
u motion does not bear out counsers
contention that he had not offered
the receipt as bona fide proof Of
payment.
ut Is also urged by Mr. Wood that
he expected that the plaintiff would
attempt TO defeat the release when
| II was introduced by showing his cor
respondence, that he was confident
I the correspondence when received in
! evidence would clinch his position by
showing the parties had Intentionally
satisfied and abandoned the Meyers
claim In order TO assert the shaw
! claim. The correspondence which he
| had, however, showed him under
what circumstances the Meyers claim
! had been abandoned, aud had the at
! tempt been made 90 defeat the re-
lease at that time, no verdict would
have been directed but the deception
practiced on the court would have
been then apparent.
Had the explanation Of the re-
ceipt been made by plaintiff when Of
I iered. as counsel says he expected II
would be, it would have shown how it
was obtained and the knowledge OF
| Mr. wood as to those facts. Prob
! ably up to the time Il was offered no
deception or fraud was perpettated
upon the court, although it Is GER
tainiy questionable TO offer receipt as
| payment which counsel knows Is not
ana trust to the other side to explain
! il. But counsel Went further and
stated to the court it was proof Of
payment and included this as a ground
for directed verdict in his subsequent
motion.
although the only matter consid-
cred here is the alleged fraud on the
court in this ease, 1t might be well
TO add that similar attempts have
been made by counsel in other cases
which have not been It's successful Us
this attempt was in deceiving The
court
some OF the explanations are in
genious. but this case is a matter OF
record and after all Is said, the fact
remain as set out IN the papers in thu
case, and the certified copy of The
testimony. The explanations, wher
Ianalyzed, fail to explain,
II agree with connsel for the de-
fendant that in pleading payment h'
does not have TO set out the facts
which constitute that defensea bu
that does not mean he can put IN EVIL
dence and urge upon the court q
payment receipt obtained as TIM
one was.
1T is also urged upon the court by
counsel for Mr. Wood that as the dc
murrer TO the complaint should have
been sustained in the first instance
the court had no Jurisdictions and tha
mo injury resulted from this proceed
ing. This contention is unworthy o
serious consideration. The fact TIA
court may have assumed Jurisdic
tion where it had none, does not al
low an attorney TO Introduce false O
perJured testmonyto support his sld'
OF the case.
81 have carefully considered TN
briefs OF counsel for the defendant
seeking TO find, IL possible, that de
PENDANTS counsel Mr.. Wood. had
bona fide purpose In offering this evl
dence which may under the eXigen
cies Of q hard fought case have turn
-----------------