The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1932-12-21
Widow Drops Suit
Against Vim. LANCER
Action Brings to Sudden End
Lawsuit Which Had At.
tracted Wide Attention
MANY ARE DISAPPOINTED
Crowd Had Waited to Hear Tes-
timony; Plaintiffs Law
yer Surprised

Suit by Mrs. Esther Johnson, DON
nybrook widow, against william
LANCER, Bismarck attorney, was drop
ped on motion of the plaintiff in dis
trict court here Wednesday.
The sudden termination at 1903
p. m. of case which had attracted
wide interest came as a surprise to a
large number of persons who had
waited since morning to hear the
trial.
Mrs. johnson had sued LANCER for
the recovery Of all or part of $4,000
which she claimed to have paid him
to work for the release of her son,
Floyd, from the state penitentiary,
where he Is serving a life term for
first-degree murder. She also asked
that the court order returned to her
a contract for the payment of an ad-
ditional $4,000 If and when the boy
was released from prison.
LANCER, in his formal answer, al
legged that the $4,000 paid to him was
q retainer fee and that he had per-
formed services sufficient to justify
its collection. He admitted getting the
money.
There was no trial of the case and
no exposition of the facts. Mrs. john
sons decision not to proceed with the
action making unnecessary the pres
entation of testimony.
B. H. Bradford, attorney for Mrs.
johnson, said the instruction to drop
the action came as a surprise to him
and was brought to the courthouse a
few minutes before the decision was
announced by Clarence Hultin, Mrs.
Johnson's son-in-law, who Is farmer
near Donnybrook.
r. Was in Legal Form
It obviously had been prepared by a
lawyer or by someone familiar with
legal procedure, being in the usual
form of court documents rather than
that Of private letter.
The form of the letter follows:
State of North Dakota, County OF
Burleigh.-In District Court, Fourth
Judicial District.
Esther Johnson VS.. William LANCER.
Believing that an injustice has been
done my son by the commencement
of the above entitled action and feel
ing that I have been wrongfully in
fluenced by the political enemies OF
william LANCER and that an injustice
has been done him thereby, desire to
dismiss this action and do hereby dis
miss the above action, with prejudice
Signed this 10th day Of December
1882.
ESTHER JOHNSON.
Witnesses
Archie johnson,
Ruth Johnson,
Mrs. Edith Hultin,
Clarence Hultin.
The witnesses all are members OF
Mrs. Johnson's family and live neal
Donnybrook.
Although the trial had been SEIZED.
uled to begin at $50 a. m, before
District Judge G. Crimson Of Rug
by, the appearance at 2 p. m, to an
nounce dismissal of the action wa!
the first in open court.
Motions Argued Secretly
Numerous motions had been argued
in chambers during the morning
judge Crimson said, although he de.
clined to reveal their nature. HI
had announced before lunch that hs
would rule on these motions at 1:3(
p. m.
Although no official statement wa.
made it developed that Bradford hac
asked for q continuance Of the cas-
to another term Of court on the
ground that the jury panel for thi.
term had not been drawn In accord
ance with the law. It also was I'm.
derstood that he had demanded thai
a new jury panel be drawn to try the
case.
Addressing the court, Bradford
said: "Since making q motion fol
the continuance Of this case, I have
received written direction from my
client to dismiss this action with
CONTINUED on cage sevenI