Evening star., 1926-04-25

Franklin and turned over the body
to Undertaken Altavull. | do not
know Undertaken Altavull, and !
never talked with DR.. hewitt and Bill
Franklin ab1ut the body of anybody.
This statement, like many others, is
untrue"
MIR. Fehning. in his formal state
meut, omitted any reference to Charge
No. 90, possibly an oversight on his
part.
Charge 2l-Michael Flaherty: In
the case of Michael Flsherty it is al.
legged in charge Il that in his (minel
petition had himself (myselD recon-
mended for committee and had him
self (myself) appointed as such COM
mittee' This is untrue. My first
communication on this case was
letter from Mrs. Anna McKenna re-
guessing me to take the necessary
steps for the appointment OF a COM
mittee. Thereafter she, the said Mrs.
Anna Mckenna, executed a petition
asking for the issuance of a writ de
lunatic inQuirendo and for my ap-
pointment as committee. After the
adjudication ! was appointed and
duly qualified and furnished the Navy
Department with certification of such
appointment, SO that the monthly
Navy retainer pay might be paid to
me.
This pay for several months had
been held up by the Navy Depart.
ment because Of the mental condition
of the Mr.. Flaherty and the amount
so held was paid to me. and | had
been receiving the monthly retainer
pay since that time. In this case !
obtained an order of court in Decem-
ber, 1925, authorizing me to pay from
of rA RYoo niof
assistance in time of dire emergency
to his sister. Mrs. Mckenna, and such
payment was made.
Answers Norris Case Charge.
Charge 22-Norris case: AS to the
case of Richard n. Norris. in which
his wife. Elizan Norris, executed a
petition for her appointment as COM
mittee of her said husband and in
which Paul V. Rogers and | appeared
as attorneys in the Supreme Court,
District of Columbia. the said petition
recited that the person executing the
same did not know the amount due
her said husband, but this did not
show, AIS alleged in charge %, that to
recover the same ii would be neces-
sary for him to prosecute a claim be-
fore the Veterans Bureau The said
petition was executed in September,
1925, and the said Norris had been
allowed compensation by the Vet
erans' Bureau May 4, 1925, and again
August "a. 1925, and the Veterans
Bureau had held prior to the institu-
ton Of the said court proceedings
that said Norris was incompetent to
receive and disburse moneys
Compensation having been award
ed in May and in August, 1925, 1t
was unnecessary to prosecute any
claim before the said bureau after
the appointment of the committee,
and after rendering the necessary
professional services incident to the
required court proceedings; all that
was then necessary was to transmit
a copy of the court certificate TO
the Veterans Bureau and ask that
the check be sent to Mrs. Norris as
committee, and this was done. Meth
er Mr.. Rogers nor l made any charge
whatsoever for any service before the
Veterans Bureau, and, as just point
ed out no service before that bureau
was necessary. Our fee for court
services was $75.
Charge 23-Lieut. Allen; | did
not solicit the case of Lieut.. Francis
d. Allen. One OF his brothers came
to my office, gave me the necessary
udLH, dSkGu lIidt L piCpdiC tHO iS
auired papers for instituting lunacy
proceedings, and after / had done 50
the petition was executed by Lieut..
Aliens father and filed in court &C
companied by the signature of numer-
GUS brothers and sisters of Lieut..
Allen"
No Compensation Received.
After adjudication. in accordance
with the prayer of the petition, was
appointed committee and / have pro
ceeded actively in the discharge or
such duties, all of which appears OF
record in the Supreme Court. District
of Columbia have received no
compensation from any source and my
compensation in this matter shall be
determined by the court at the proper
time.
Charge 24-Cunningham case: AS
to the case of Charles l.. Cunningham +
I did appear with Paul v. Rogers as
counsel Of record in the Supreme
Court, District of Columbia. In a pro-
eeeding in lunaey filed in December
1925. There is no legal prohibition
against a Commissioners OF the Dis
trict of Columbia practicing law; the
actual appearances in court in con-
nection with the inQuisition In this
case were by Mr.. Rogers, but l had
numerous conferences with Mr..
Cunningham sister and with Mr.
Rogers, and some time after the sister
had been appointed and had qualified
as committee she filed petition set
., - 70 a., ~ g.gf