Radio Script #1033

Little Talks on Common Things
January 5, 1975

On the large farm now occupied by Harland Bragg on the east side of the West River Road near its junction with the Trafton Road, there lived at the turn into this century a very interesting man, Walter K. Barton. Thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Bragg, I have had a chance to examine some of that man’s papers.

After the Civil War, Barton became a lawyer and set up practice in Minneapolis. He had been born in Sidney, in that part of the town known as North Sidney, where in the 1890’s the North Sidney Post Office was in the front room of a house a little south of the present Harland Bragg place. Previous to his study of law he was for some 15 years a paymaster in the U.S. Navy.

Preserved among the papers is Barton’s license to practice law in Minnesota, dated Dec. 4, 1889. It reads as follows: “Walter K. Barton, an applicant for admission to the bar, appeared at a general term of the District Court and produced satisfactory evidence of his qualifications. Ordered, that said Walter K. Barton is licensed to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in all the courts of this state. The said W. K. Barton took oath in open Court as required by law. H. Young, Senior Judge.”

Walter Barton was a man who seems never to have thrown anything away. When he returned to Sidney about 1900, he brought with him not only many Naval items but also the records of what must have been every law case in which he participated in Minnesota. All the papers concerning each case are tied up in a separate package, and there are more than a hundred of those packages.

Like most beginning lawyers, Barton had at first done a lot of bill collecting.

In one case there was a letter in 1893 from a creditor in Utica, N.Y., whom Barton was representing, to the debtor. It said: “We never intended to give up on this account. From talk with a representive of the Superior Furnace Co., we thought they had now settled with you. Let me know what settlement you can make at once. If we do not hear from you within 30 days, this account will be placed in the hands of Attorney W. K. Barton of Minneapolis.”

The debt was not paid at once, for two months later the Utica creditor wrote. to Barton: “If you can collect from Gray Brothers what is due us, amounting to $723.93 with interest, we will pay you 20 per cent.” Another month went by and Barton received a telegram: “How are you succeeding with the Bray Bros. account?” The last paper in the case was a letter acknowledging the creditor’s receipt of payment less Barton’s 20 per cent.

In the case of Theodore Koch vs. Charles Nicoll, Barton represented the defendant, who claimed that Koch was not and had never been owner of the land over which his suit was brought. Several persons were concerned, the deed having been passed, legally or illegally, from one to another. It was a confusing case, and it took more than a year for Barton to see it through.

Defendant Nicoll admitted to receiving from one Gordon a mortgage deed and note· which Gordon had received from one Smith. That, said Nicoll, made him the owner of the property. Nicoll insisted that Smith once owned the land, but never sold any part of it to a fourth person named Willey. The plaintiff Koch as stoutly contended that Smith did indeed convey a deed of the property to Willey, then Willey sold it to one Amos Knight, who in turn sold it to the defendant Koch. It was all quite a mess, but our Sidney man finally succeeded in getting a verdict for his client.

One of Barton’s biggest cases concerned a resort hotel in Galveston, Texas. One I. J. Clark of Minneapolis, a speculator in hotel property, decided to buy a place called the Beach Hotel in Galveston. He made a deal to pay in part with property he
owned in Minnesota. A Galveston attorney named Campbell had handled the deal for Clark, and had been obliged to adjust a claim on the property by the Galveston Street Railway Co. A contract was drawn according to the verbal agreement when Clark was in Galveston, and the document was sent to Minneapolis for his signature. Clark refused to sign, and the deal fell through. Clark did not buy the hotel. The lawyer Campbell, claiming he had spent much time on the case, tried to collect a fee from Clark, who refused to pay on the grounds that no sale had occurred, and anyhow Campbell was on retainer from the Street Railway Co. That accusation was denied by Campbell, who employed Barton in Minneapolis to make collection, by suit if necessary. The bill was for $600. Barton managed to collect without suit, though the amount was compromised at $400.

Like most young lawyers, Barton handled divorce cases. One was of special interest. Mercy Thirds had obtained a divorce from J. M. Thirds of Minneapolis and had then moved to San Francisco. The big package of papers that Barton preserved on that case contains several letters written by the woman in San Francisco to Barton in Minneapolis. She was having trouble getting the divorced husband to pay any part of the care of their daughter. On Jan. 31, 18~1, she wrote to Barton: “About four years ago I was granted a divorce from my husband, J. M. Thirds, by the Superior Court at Chicago, where we were married in 1872, and where for many years we made our home. The charge was infidelity and there were no counter charges. Our only child, a daughter, was given to me. My lawyer advised me to waive alimony because Mr. Thirds, through drunkeness and wild living, had completely unfitted himself for business and consequently would be unable to pay. For more than four years I have received no aid from him, supporting myself and my child by my own earnings. Part of the time he was in a condition to help, but refused to do so. Now he has a good office job in Minneapolis. Previous to last summer he had paid no attention to the child for more than biO years, but then he called on me only to see her, and he told her he now meant to do a father’s duty. He left us his Minneapolis address and shortly afterward I wrote to him, and asked that he communicate with the Mother Superior at St. Mary’s Academy, Notre Dame, Indiana, concerning our daughter’s expenses at that school. His reply was rude and non-commital. I then came to California for my health and for a long time was unable to work. Now I am just beginning to recover my capacity for earning. A few weeks ago I again wrote to Mr. Thirds and enclosed a school bill for $122, which I asked him to pay. He made no reply but he did send $10 to our daughter at St. Mary’s. I do not suggest that anything is due to me personally, but there is no reason why he should not support his child. He has behaved so badly that I am now determined to get from him as much as the law will allow. He may have no money saved, but he has a good salary, and so far as I know unmarried, though he may still be living with a woman who has been his companion for a long time. My daughter’s expenses are, all told, $400 a year. I now engage you to collect every cent you can get from Mr. Thirds.”

Barton collected, as Mrs. Thirds demanded, then there was trouble about his legal fee. On March 8, 1892, the woman wrote to Barton: “When you demanded 33-1/3 per cent of what you might collect as your fee, I objected to it as exorbitant. However I agreed to pay the amount when I could, and allowed you to go on with the case. As no further work was done by you, I know of no reason why you should be paid for it. You have already received 1/6 of the amount collected, much more than ordinary fees. I cannot admit your new claim, nor could I pay it even if I were disposed to do so. If you will wait courteously until I am again earning, I will give you $10 but no more. I have no money now nor any property. Under the circumstances, threats would be absurd. Even courts cannot get something out of nothing.”

Why did Walter Barton preserve that correspondence, nailed up in a box with other papers, and discovered only long after his death? The papers make him appear to have demanded heavy fees from this woman, but behind the blunt papers must lie a hidden story, or Barton would have destroyed them long ago. It is quite possible that he spent a lot of time and had a lot of trouble on the case, fully justifying all he charged.

Now for an odd item about Waterville. Several times on this program I have called attention to old ordinances adopted in town meetings long before Waterville became a city. One such ordinance forbade the transportation of live coals through the streets by wheelbarrow. Another forbade cleaning fish and leaving their “innards” on the bank of the Kennebec between the Clark shipyard (later site of the Lockwood Mills) and the old landing at the foot of Temple Street. Now comes to light reference to an alleged ordinance more unusual than those. The information comes to us in a way that exemplifies
the wide range of business activities over the nation today. A Hathaway shirt salesman in the midwest received the information from his father in Fort Worth, Texas. At a meeting in Kansas City, the salesman handed it on to Hathaway president Leonard Saulter. Mr. Saulter sent it to me.

Now for the information itself. Most newspapers now run, as does our Morning Sentinel, a column to answer readers’ questions. Recently the Fort Worth Daily received from a reader this question: “Is it true, as I have heard, that it is against the law to blow your nose in public?” The editor answered: “Not in Fort Worth. The only place I can find where it is a violation is Waterville, Maine.”

Whether that statement is true I do not know. Waterville had, in its early years, some strange ordinances, but I have never seen that one. And with that loud snort, we must say goodbye until next week.

Year: 1975