Evening Republican, Volume 23, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 February 1920 — MESSMAN SUIT IS DISMISSED [ARTICLE]

MESSMAN SUIT IS DISMISSED

KENTLAND DEMOCRAT GIVES ARTICLE IN REFERENCE TO THIS CASE. Sometime ago the Republican gave considerable space to a case filed in the Newton county court in which Herman Messman of this city brought suit against Warren T, McCray. The suit was brought, so the complaint alleged, to quiet title to land in which Mr. Messman claimed an interest. The following article from the Kentland Democrat has reference to this case: ‘ On call days of the present term of the Newton circuit court the case of Herman Messman against Warren T. McCray was set for trial on Tuesday of this week, but when the case was called, on that date, the plaintiff’s chief counsel. W\ H. Pafkinson, of Lafayette, was reported to be sick, and failed to appear, and his co-counsel, Hume L. Sammons, dismissed the case at their client’s costs. Mr. McCray then called Attorney Parkinson by phone and the latter answered the call in person. But to anyone familiar with the case it would not have been surprising if both of the plaintiff’s counsel had found it convenient to be absent when the case was called. The suit was instituted last August and on the morning of the same day that the case was filed at least three daily papers circulating thruout Indiana published the substance of plaintiff’s complaint—which was not filed in court until hours after these newspapers had gone to press. The purpose of such in-advance publication can well be imagined. It is an unusual proceeding for any honorable attorney to cause to be published (even locally) the contents of his court pleadings (whether libelous or not) prior to the determination of his case in court. Professional ethics and sound discretion as to the rights of the parties forbid it. Yet, in this •case —for some purpose or other — it was done without stint, regardless of the libelous matter it contained. It appears that on the day before this suit was filed, Attorney Parkinson called upon Mr. McCray and demanded that unless satisfactory settlement of the pretended claim was made immediately, suit would be filed against him. Mr. McCray unreservedly and absolutely refused to entertain any such proposition, whereupon Parkinson went to the office of his co-counsel and left instructions to him that unless Mr. McCray did so settle he should file the case in court. Parkinson then hurried away an<T before the newspapers containing account of the finding reached Kentland Attorney Sammons had also left town, on a fishing trip—to be absent several days. Whether they Were actually deceived by their client as to the merits of his case, or that it was thought that on account of Mr. McCray’s then being a prospective candidate for the office of governor he might be an easy mark and fall for the demand, our readers may draw their own conclusions.

From the filing of the case until its dismissal, Mr. McCray has persistently insisted upon a hearing at the earliest possible moment. He filed his answer last October, m hopes of having it tried at that term, but the case was continued. However, the persistent efforts of his counsel, William Darroch—who is a conscienteous Democrat of the old school, with an abiding faith in the principles of his party and great respect for the ethics of his profes-sion-forced the plaintiff and his counsel out into the open. Plaintiff’s counsel secured the services of J. H. O’Neill, a member of the state board of accounts —who, as it happens to be, is a Democrat—from Indianapolis, to examine the books of McCray, the McCray Grain Co. and the McCray-Morrison Grain Co., showing all transactions between Messrs. McCray and Messman, hoping, no doubt, that such examination might disclose some kind of clue that would help tb bolster up their impossible case Mr. O’Neill was given free access to every book and paper he cared to investigate, from the time when Mr. Messman first began to do business with Mr. McCray, up to the present time. Mr. O’Neil labored industriously for two days, and having completed his work, Mr. McCray requested of him he furnish him with a copy of 'his report, but of the granting of this' favor at that time he asked to be excused, for the reason that as the other parties had employed him it would not be ethical for him to do so; he did say, however, that he had never examined a more complete or systematically kept set of books and that they were in perfect balance. It was for the purpose of securing a copy of this report that Mr. McCray called Attorney Parkinson on the phone immediately after the dismissal of the case, and Paridnsoh promised to furnish it for him. there is no law in Indiana prohibiting action such as was indulged in, in this case, there should be one enacted; and if there is any permitting n' litigant to frame -up any kind of case his fertile imagination may conceive of, for the purpose of

publishing broadcast a libel against a fellow citizen, whether for pelf or spite, such should be repealed. The Democrat does not subscribe to Mr. McCray’s politics, but it does believe in fair play. For some years past The Democrat has not’ received fair play at the hands of some of its own party brethern, but it is still doing business (as it has been for more than a quarter century under its present management) and bids fair to continue so until long after its present malefactors are gone and forgotten; and if it is to be a Republican governor for Indiana after next November’s election there is no candidate of that party whom we would rawer see elected than he, for thgreasons that he is one of the worthiest of Kentland’s citizens and that it would be an honor to our town to be the home of the governor of our state.