OCR Text |
Show CHAPLIN SUIT I VERDICT $4,000 SALT LAKE CITY Mav 1 A vcr- diet of $4,000 In faVOt of the plaintiffs In the suit of Samuel A. King and Russell G. Schulder. attorneys, seeking seek-ing 52G 000 us a tee alleged to he duo for advice given to Charles Chaplin, motion plcturo comedian was ronder-ftd ronder-ftd by a federal court jury The ver-1 diet :f reached l.iKt nltfht and was: sealed and presented to the court thlsj morning. .Sydney Chaplin, brother of the com- cdlan. sxiid he was satisfied with the verdict and Mr King declared ho did not think there would be an appeal I TUItEE Ql'ICSTIONS It MM I) In instructing the Jury Judge Pagei Morris said that In deciding upon a erdlct the Jurors had thr-e .uo"tlons to answer. First, he said, was the service requested of King & Bhulder by Charles Chaplin? Second, what service 'was rendered? Third, what was the service worth" In commenting upon the first question. ques-tion. Judge Morns referred to the testimony tes-timony of the defense that Chaplin merely wanted to jnow whether his property, if move.) to Ball Lake from Los Angeles, could be attached through a California process. If that was the only question, said the court, the service would be worth much less than If tho other questions touchel upon during the trial were embra:ed in the work of the attorneys The court said that the evidence had shown that the negotiations between the defendant and King & Schulder had been carried on through Sidney-Chaplin Sidney-Chaplin and Thomas Harrington, as agents for Charles Chaplin, with one exception. The exception referred to I was an Interview which Russell G Schulder testified to having had with I the comedian at the Hot-1 Utah The court said that Charles Chaplin was responsible for the negotiations of his agents so long as they did not exceed their authoritv snitvirr: iactors rxplied If. said the court the law firm uer- rormed services not requested bv the defendant, and that the defendant" having hav-ing been Informed of such service did not object to it or refuse to accept It. the Jury could hold that such service ser-vice was ratified bv Chaplin and that compensation was duo tho attorneys The court said that In fixing a fee the nature of the controversy and the questions submitted by tho client were to be considered. Other factors he sAid. are difficulty charocter knd Importance Im-portance of tho questions responsibility, responsibil-ity, labor, value of the property standing and experience of the attorneys at-torneys and the results obtained |