An interesting case involving the question of legal fees was heard by Mr. N. E. Lurton, Commissioner, in the U.S. Court for China on Wednesday afternoon when Mr. A. Steele made motion in a demurrer against the petition filed against him by Messrs, Williams, Franklin Faison claiming the sum of Tls. 250 for legal services rendered.
Mr. Steele's demurrer was based upon the following:—(1) That complainant does not state the facts sufficiently to constitute a cause of action; and (2) That complaint is vague, ambiguous, uncertain and unintelligible in that the said complaint does not with sufficient definiteness, certainty or particularity set forth the terms and conditions upon which said defendant engaged the plaintiff as alleged in the said complaint.
Plaintiffs were represented by Mr. C. S. Franklin and the defendant appeared in person.
The question, said Mr. Stele, was whether the fee agreed upon was a straight fee or a contingent fee: whether it was to be paid regardless of its sufficiency (a certain amount standing to his credit with the Clerk of the Court): or whether the amount was to be paid in any case. The agreement which he, Mr. Steele had filed expressly stated out of the. "amount recovered." Mr. Steele submitted that he had recovered no money from the Clerk of the Court? If he had, when and where? He submitted that he could not be expected to put in an answer unless the complaint put their petition in definite wording. As it was, he alleged, there was a double meaning. He asked the Court to take the matter under advisement.
Mr. Franklin said that if the Court thought that his petition was sufficiently and definitely worded, he would not argue, but he thought
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.