Letters Sent to Leonard J. Emmerglick, July 20, 1935

July 30, 3935. e a o 1461 Anita J. Burricolli VS. United States Radium Corp. o a o 1484 Harola J. Teber, Adme. ad pros. etc. VB. United States Radium Corg. Leonard J. Innorgliek, Esq. 1172 Raymond Boulevard, Newark, N. J. Deax Mr. In the Burricelli 0ase Mx. Milton M. Unger appears for the plainties as attornoy of record, while you appear in the Weber dass. I understand, hovevor, from my telephonic talk with you today that you are actually in cherge of both cases. Thorefore I am directing my orrespondence to you at this time although I em writing to Mx. Unger that if it is agrocable to him, the future will be directed to you solcly. I em sending hin B copy of this letter for his Anformation. The sumons and complaint in the Weber case was served on July 9th while in the Durricolli case it vas served on July 10th. lie therofore have considerable time in which to proceed, although I understand from my telk with you that we may have additional time if desired, the understanding being that the case will be put et issue about the time the Fall term ogens, if prectionble. As soon as I get to it, I shall axart a demand for partioulare in each ense and sond it to you for acknovledgment of service. AB you know, Judge Formen has not yot decided the esse of La Porte V. U. D. Redium Gorn. and of course his docision in that case, 1 presumo, will have a considerable effect on those cases assuming that it is adverse to you. It would therefore acem to be unnocessary for us to go ahoad with physicol examina- tions, X-rays, blood tests, etc. in the caso of Anita T. Burri- colli. May it be understood that in that case ve may have these examinations after the decision by Judge Forman 1f wo then dest re them? Sincerely yours, EAM E. A. MARKLEY