In 1871 I held a judgment for $50,000 which I had obtained in the El
Paso District Court against a citizen of El Paso County for having
caused my arrest and imprisonment by the Confederates in 1861, as
related in my war story. This judgment being in full force and I being
in Austin, my friend, Major De Normandie, then Clerk of the Supreme
Court, introduced me to a prominent attorney of De Witt County, Texas,
who informed me that the defendant owned property in De Witt County out
of which my judgment, or a large portion of it, could be satisfied. I
implored this attorney to act for me in De Witt County, and on my return
home I sent him, at his request, a certified copy of the judgment and
received a letter from him dated June 7th, 1871, informing me that they
had written out a levy which they would proceed with in a day or two,
and requesting me to send them some money for costs, which I did. After
long delay I wrote this attorney, asking to be informed of the result,
and he replied that the whole proceeding was a failure because he had
dated the levy _on a Sunday_, which mistake vitiated the whole
proceeding and that my rights were lost.
He stated that “strange as it might seem” he had been led to make the
mistake by an error in an almanac in his office. As this attorney did
not suggest any remedy for his own blunder or institute any further
proceeding I concluded then, and believe now, that political prejudice
or some other unworthy motive had influenced him to act in bad faith
with his client. The attorney and the defendant were both Confederates
and Democrats, while I was a Union man and a Republican, and much bitter
feeling had grown out of the suit and the acts preceding and attending
it.
I met this lawyer in Austin a year or so later, and he made no further
explanation except to affirm that it “made no difference, because the
Supreme Court had decided that my judgment was void.” As a matter of
fact, and of record, the Supreme Court had decided that the judgment was
valid. And here I will state a fact which I hope the reader will
remember when he comes to read the case following this one—_this
gentleman was later on elected a Judge of the Supreme Court of Texas_.
My judgment for $50,000 (mentioned in the preceding paragraphs) was in
1868, before the Supreme Court at Austin on writ of error or appeal, or
both, taken or claimed to have been taken from the District Court of El
Paso County by the defendant. A supersedeas bond for one hundred
thousand dollars _damages_, signed by John Hancock and Thomas J. Divine,
was filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court by the appellant’s
attorney, whom I will not name here.
When this appeal came on for trial my attorney discovered to his
amazement that the words “thousand” and “damages” had been erased on the
face of the bond and the words “costs” inserted instead of the word
damages.
It is proper to explain to the non-professional reader that this fraud
and forgery changed the nature of the bond, so that if I gained the
case—and I _did_ gain it—I could recover from the sureties, who were
both wealthy men, only one hundred dollars “_costs_,” instead of the
full amount of the judgment, namely, fifty thousand dollars “_damages_.”
The Judges were, of course, astounded, and called the Clerk, Major de
Normandie, who being sworn testified that the record had been borrowed
by appellant’s attorney when it was in its original condition, and that
when it was returned the erasures and forgery were in the handwriting of
said attorney. The guilty attorney was present, but stood mute, offering
no explanation or excuse for his acts. The Court, at some length and
with strong indignation, rendered its decision dismissing the appeal and
leaving my judgment in full force, but the wrong to me had been done, so
far as the bond was concerned.
My loss was about forty thousand dollars.
If any one questions any of the above statements he will find abundant
proof in the Reports of the Supreme Court of Texas:
Hart vs. Mills, 31st Texas, page 304, and Hart vs. Mills, 38th Texas,
pages 513 and 517.
This thing was not done in a corner. Every attorney of that Court knew
the facts exactly as I have stated them, and it was a duty they owed to
themselves and to the profession to have disbarred the attorney, but he
stood fairly well socially and had been a “good” Confederate and
Democrat and I was only a frontiersman and Republican, and so _they
elected him a Judge of the Supreme Court of Texas_, as had been done
with the lawyer in the case mentioned above. I believe there is a legal
maxim, or a legal axiom, or a legal _fiction_, that there can be no
wrong without a remedy, and I am asked why I did not pursue the remedy.
Oh, I don’t know. I suppose every man of affairs has sometimes in his
life done or neglected things which he could scarcely explain afterward,
even to himself. I was seven hundred miles away, and my attorney was
well paid in advance for looking out for my interests, and unless he
choose to act I don’t think I could have broken the combination. There
are times when even the most energetic men become discouraged and weary
of strife, and for a time at least feel like letting things drift as
they may.
In 1873 I had a suit pending in court at El Paso involving the title to
valuable real estate, and I paid an El Paso attorney $800 to attend to
it.
In my absence and without my consent this lawyer compromised me out of
court for a worthless consideration, and I lost the property. Of course,
I might have repudiated this compromise, but I was handicapped by the
fact that the property in question was held in trust for me by my
brother, E. A. Mills, and the lawyer had induced him, by claiming to
have authority from me, to re-convey the property; and the legal
machinery here at that time was such that I thought it hopeless to
litigate further.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------