Evening star., 1935-04-14
Judge in Wardman Case
Says He Was Unaware
of One Suit.
ATTORNEYS CRITICIZED
FOR PERMITTING ERROR
Jurist Named Receivers Without
Knowing of Previous
Application.
(Picture on Page By
BY JOHN III. CLINE.

Recommendations for change IN
handling local foreclosures we're sub
mitted to a special House committee
investigating mortgage reflnancing
yesterday after District judge had
testified he appointed three receivers
for the Wardman properties without
knowing a previous suit seeking the
same relief was on file.
Justice James M. Proctor of the Dis
trict Supreme Court, told the COM
mittee he signed an order appoint
ing the three receivers without know
ing a similar suit had already been
presented to Justice Jennings Bailey.
who granted a To-day continuance to
permit the plaintiff to amend his
petition.
Committee Chairman SABBATH asked
Justice Proctor if he didn't think the
attorneys appearing in the second case
should have informed him the other
suit was already on file.
YES" replied Justice Proctor, II
think / should have been informed
of it. I would then have conferred
with the attorneys in the other case"
Attorneys Criticized
Referring to action of counsel in
the second case, SABBATH said: THE
least thing that should have been
done by these outstanding attorneys
was to inform Justice Proctor Of the
fact that the other suit had been filed
so as to save him embarrassment"
Representative Dirksen of Illinois
remarked that the conduct of the at
torneys was highly unethical." He
also said he wondered if they might
not be subject to disbarment."
1t was then brought out that sew
eral judges might hear different
stages of a receivership case in the
local courts, although but one Judge
presides after hearing is started on
the merits of the case.
Representative Fuller of Arkansas.
said he thought it would be better If
the judge who appointed the receivers
should preside throughout the case.
Hiz Agrees With Fuller.
Associate Justice William Hitz of
the District Court of Appeals said he
agreed with Fuller that the local pro-
cedure might be improved by having
the judge who appoints receivers fol-
low the case through to its conciu-
sion. He pointed out this would save
time and put the judge in a position
where he would be better equipped to
pass on fee allowances and similar
matters.
Associate Justice Oscar r. Luhring
of the District Supreme Court was
commended for his handling of the
| National Press Building case, in which
| single receiver acted for 5000 a
year.
Justice Luhring said, however, that
three receivers might be necessary in
some cases, and urged the committee
not to recommend any hard and fast
law which would deprive the courts Of
discretion in determining the needed
number of receivers in a given case.
The rest of the afternoon session
was devoted to a general discussion of
foreclosure proceedings here and in
other Jurisdictions. Mr.. SABBATH said
the committee found better conditions
prevailing here than in other cities.
and asked the judges to submit any
suggestions which might be helpful
to the committee in drafting legisla-
ton on the subject.
May Reopen Wardman Case.
Earlier in the day a possibility de-
| veloped that the entire Wardman case
might be reopened, after testimony
by Julius I. Peyser, local attorney and
| banker.
Peyser told the committee the prop
critics were sold for s2,800,OOO, the
buyer assuming s4,O00,0O0 in underly-
! ing mortgages, and said he believed
they are worth at least $4,000 900.
He was asked if there is any way
this thing might be reopened to do
modicum of justice to the bond
holders" Peyser replied it might be
reopened by filling a petition for re-
view of the case, which already has
been through the Court of Appeals
When the committee resumes its
hearing tomorrow, one of the wit
neSseS will be Justice r. D. Let's Of
the District Supreme Court. who dp-
proved the sale of the Wardman prop
critics.