Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/219

 2O2

THE GREEN BAG

ages for rents and profits in the sum of one thousand dollars, though he knew that Swayne had never been in possession and did not claim any title. There never was any pretence that Judge Swayne had any title, as the only deed ever made was to his wife and that was rejected. Mr. Davis was then employed in that suit and testified that he knew nothing about the title. Mr. Belden, in answer to a question as to whether he was advised that Judge Swayne had made a statement from the bench and had declined to recuse himself said, "Oh, I was fully informed about that," though he after wards in the same examination denied any knowledge of Judge Swayne's statement about the purchase. He made no examina tion of the record to see how the title stood. Mr. Hooten testified that neither Paquet, Beiden, or Davis had ever made any in quiry of him as to the negotiations for the sale of lot 91. Apparently they were not looking for reliable information. Beiden admitted that he had made no inquiries. It appeared in the contempt hearing that Paquet, Beiden, and Davis, all signed the precipe in the State Court suit. The con ference which resulted in the bringing of that suit was held in the store of Mr. Pryor, who seems to have been financing the McGuire litigation. At that conference it is claimed an understanding was entered into to dismiss the McGuire suit on Monday morning, and great stress was laid upon this understanding as conclusively demonstrat ing that the suit in the State Court, which was afterward brought could not have been intended to affect the McGuire suit inas much as it had already been agreed to dis continue it. But that understanding, if in fact, had proved to be entirely immaterial as affecting the propriety of Judge Swayne's conclusions on the facts in the contempt case, as it was conceded he was not in formed of any such understanding or agree ment. Testifying to it and exploiting it with a great flourish of trumpets, three years after it ought to have been communi

cated to the judge, if he was to be affected by it, while possibly characteristic, could hardly prejudice the judge before an intel ligent tribunal. The writ was served on Swayne after eight o'clock Saturday night. Mr. Beiden gave as reason for this extreme diligence, that it was hurried up and served that night so as to be in time for the rule day of the following month, and they wanted to have service on Charles Swayne before he left the state, but it appeared that the first Monday of December was the first rule day and that according to his under standing he needed only fifteen days for service and he had at least twenty-one, six more than the requisite number, and that he knew Swayne was to be in Pensacola until the following Monday at 10, so that from every point of view there was ample time and opportunity for service on Mon day. Later in the evening, apprehensive no doubt, that the bringing of the suit should not sufficiently embarrass the Judge and bring him into public contempt, Mr. Paquet wrote an article for the Pensacola Press, published Sunday, and sent it to the paper by Mr. Pryor. In this article he de scribed the State Court suit as "A decided new move in the now celebrated case of Mrs. Florida McGuire," and in order that there might be no question as to identity and purpose, said it was to recover posses sion of lot 91 "and which is alleged that Judge Swayne purchased from a real estate agent in this city during the summer months and which is a part of the property now in litigation before him." Beiden and Davis endeavored to break the force of this ar ticle by stating that they had nothing to do with writing it and testified that they so stated to Judge Swayne at the hearing. Judge Swayne's counsel claimed in argu ment before the Senate, that these attor neys conspired to bring a baseless suit for an unlawful purpose, and if the conspiracy was made out it might well have been held on familiar principles that they were re