Memorandum, December 31, 1935

MEMORANDUM December 31, 1935. At the request of Judge Formon, Mr. Markley, representing the Globe Indemnity Company; Mr. E.F. Smith, representing the New Amsterdan Gasualty Company; and the writer, as woll as Mr. Emmor- glick, counsel in the LePorte case, appeared in the Judge's chambers, on Friday afternoon, Decenber 27th, at 2 P.M. The object of the conference, as it developed, was to ascertain the possibility of the defendant and his associates amicably agreeing to reimburse Mr. Emmerglick for his services in the LePorte Action. It developed that the out-of-pocket money spent by Mr. Unger amounted to approximately $850.00, and that there was a bill of approxi- mately $1200.00 still due lirs. Bergen for transcript of the testinony. Judge Forman, however, stated that Bergen would, in all probability, accept $500.00 as complete settlement of this bill. Mr. Emnerglick made a very strong plea to have the Court award counsel fees to the plaintiff's lawyer in the Order disnissing the Bill of Complaint. He cited references to the effect that such a procedure was entirely within the legal rights of the Judge, although there was some question as to their applicability in the Court where this Action was tried. Mr. Markley objected to the citations, stating that for the most part they were not applicable and that even if they vere, the amount which could be specified would be very nominal. Judge Forman stated that he had made a cursory examination of the law, and that at the moment he was not satisfied whether it was in his rights to make such an allowanco, but that unless se could emicably agree upon some fee, he would be com- pelled to examine the law further, as he felt vory strongly that Mr. Em- merglick was entitled to some compensation. Judge Forman further pointed out that he folt lik. Hamerglick had rendered a distinct service by presenting the emse in such a work- manlike manner, taking every detail into consideration, and that his development of the case had been of material assistance in enabling the Court to come to its decision. He further stated that while he could give us no assurance that his decision would virtually meen a cessation of all activity, still he felt that in all probability such would be the case. There was considerable discussion as to the amount of money which Mr. Emmerglick should receive, but it finally cems down to the Judge aug- gesting that Mr. Unger be paid $1500.00 to reimburse him for out-of-pocket monsy, as well as settle with Mrs. Bergen, and that he should not be allowed any counsel fees other than what he would obtain by the difference between $1500.00 and what monies he had to pay out. As far as Mr. Annerglick was concerned, he folt he should have $2500.00 and trusted that we would find a way to make this payment.