$3 million is to me very interesting, and it was a "go for broke, winner take all" lawsuit with the amount of recovery agreed upon, $3 million or nothing.

What makes the Fields case especially memorable is the unique settlement agreement. In 5 years as a State trial judge and 5 years as a Federal trial judge, I have never participated in anything like it.

I don't suggest anything was wrong with it; it was just unique. In trying to remember something 9 years ago it is difficult to distinguish between actual recall and logical reconstruction of events. I will make the attempt but I do express the caveat that what I now seem to remember may be partially a reconstruction of what I now think must have occurred.

It is my impression that at least one of the lawyers representing the three defendants, Prentice Hall and the IBC Co., I have forgotten the name of it, and Mr. Casey, did not take the plaintiff's case seriously enough and seemed to me at the time to be absurdly overconfident of a verdict in favor of the defendants. I had the feeling, I think, from the beginning of the trial that it was going for the plaintiff and that the defense lawyers would have been wise to attempt settlement after the first day or so of the trial.

It is my impression that they made no such attempt. I don't recall any, or any that was brought to my attention.

I was not at all surprised by the jury verdict, although I do not now remember the amount of it.

By the way, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am testifying without the benefit of having seen the transcript, which has now been opened. Perhaps some of you read it. I haven't seen it.

I entered the order by consent. Mr. Casey consented and the other defendants to open the record and type the transcript, but frankly, I wasn't enough interested in it to ask that a copy be sent to me, so I haven't seen it.

To repeat, I wasn't surprised by the jury verdict. I took home with me and yesterday my secretary found up in the attic of the post office building in Asheville, photostatic copies of docket entries made by an extremely capable deputy clerk whom I still remember very well, Rudy Laudante, of the southern district. According to the docket entries, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on the night of Wednesday, March 7. Nine years and 2 days ago. I have written in at approximately 10 p.m. The docket sheet also shows that a special verdict was returned and this accords with my memory and my invariable practice. Perhaps this is reconstruction rather than recall, but I should explain that North Carolina is one of the few States, I think, relatively few, that have traditionally employed the special verdict practice of litigation rather than the general verdict practice. So it was easy for me to switch from being a State judge to a Federal judge because I did the same thing I had been accustomed to doing.

The docket sheet also shows defendant's motion, all three of them, I think, motion to set aside the verdict, and it shows that I reserved decision on that motion until the next morning at 10:30 a.m. I do not think I had any intention of setting the verdict aside and it is my impression that I did not then rule upon it merely because it was late at night and we were all tired out.

Also, I felt the lawyers were entitled to be heard on the motion and it was certainly too late for that. It is my recollection that when I arrived at the Foley Square Courthouse the next morning, there was a new lawyer waiting for me who represented the defendant. My impression is somebody from the same law firm but a different lawyer, one who had not participated in the trial of the case. I think he did most of the talking and in the absence of plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyers told me that the defendants had played hell, that the case should have been taken much more seriously and should have been settled long before trial date, and certainly during the trial. His attitude, as I recall it, was that the money was of no great consequence but that the damage to reputation of the corporate defendants in the event of newspaper publicity could be simply devasating.

My memory is that the case had gone all the way to the jury against Prentice Hall as well as the other corporate defendants, but Rudy Laudante's docket sheet of March 6 shows motion of Prentice Hall, this is the day before the verdict, motion of Prentice Hall to dismiss and then it shows "Motion denied," the word denied is then stricken through and then the word "granted" is written into the docket sheet. So that apparently by the docket sheet, I have no independent recollection of it, I granted a motion to dismiss in favor of Prentice Hall and apparently the case went to the jury against the other corporate defendant and Mr. Casey.

Frankly the entry surprises me. This shows something about memory 9 years and 2 days later because I thought the verdict was against all three defendants. I think I remember accurately that counsel for defendants told me privately on the morning after verdict that they would of course, like all lawyers, like to pay as little money as possible, and certainly get what we call a discount for cash, but that if they had to do it they would pay the entire amount of the verdict, on condition. that the record be sealed, the verdict sheet destroyed, and that neither Mr. Fields nor anyone else divulge the trial and the verdict to the press. I have always thought, Mr. Chairman, and still do, that the law wisely favors compromise and settlement between private litigants. On the theory that it is a free country and that private disputants can do most anything they want to do, I went upstairs and, advancing that viewpoint to Chief Judge Ryan, I found him in agreement. I thought I ought to consult him, frankly, because President Kennedy had appointed me in July or August of 1961. This was February or March of 1962. I was relatively inexperienced as a Federal judge and I never heard of this sort of a settlement agreement with the record sealed.

I thought that because there was no public interest involved, either State or Federal, contrasted for example to an antitrust case where the Congress intends that private prosecutions in effect be substituted because the Attorney General can't prosecute all violations, and that is the Congress' purpose and there is a public interest in such a private lawsuit. But in this sort of thing where there was no public interest, either State or Federal, I felt that I should approve the compromise settlement agreement, and I did it and I would do it again.

About the time that we had it all wrapped up, and this probably took an hour or so, maybe two, because I do recall riding up in the

elevator to find Chief Judge Ryan and ask him what he thought about it, about the time I had it wrapped up, Mr. Fields threw some fat on the fire by asking in very innocent tones, if I recall it, if it would be all right for him to have the court reporter make him just one copy of his lawyer's speech to the jury.

He said it was the prettiest speech he ever heard in his life. It was not, of course, all right, and Mr. Field was persuaded to withdraw his request.

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to respond to any questions from anyone on the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. First, Judge Craven, let me say, speaking for the committee, we do appreciate your responding to the invitation that

we sent to you.

I don't believe you ever said what the amount of the verdict was. Judge CRAVEN. All I know is what I read in the New York Times; it was $42,500. I don't remember that myself.

The CHAIRMAN. I was about to give a different figure, so I don't know. I understand it was $41,000 and that it was settled for $20,500. But that is not material, it is somewhere in that neighborhood.

Judge CRAVEN. Well, I learned in New York, I even called it the New York practice when I got back to North Carolina, and I used it in North Carolina to advantage.

Up there it is the practice really for the trial judge to feel no inhibition at all about talking with counsel for plaintiff separately and then talking to counsel for the defendant privately and separately in an effort to get them together. I think that is a good practice for a trial judge. So I know I did that. I am sure of that. I think that defendant's counsel, as I said, and I am repeating I believe, weren't really concerned about the money. Sure it is a lot of money but not a fortune. They were concerned-I think they told me they would pay it all if they had to but naturally they would rather pay 10 percent or half.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to say as a former practicing attorney, that I fully agree with you on the idea of encouraging parties in a suit to settle. I have had a good many suits in my lifetime, not against me but that I handled as a lawyer, and I have worked out some. May I say that I have had the assistance of Federal judges in working out settlements, too.

Sometimes when the judgment had been rendered we used to have a Federal judge down in the northern district of Alabama who was very fine at those things. I think it is entirely reasonable and a good practice.

Judge CRAVEN. In reference to your remark about it not being against you, I thought I might set something of a record and go 15 years without ever having been sued. It was so until last week. Judge Haynesworth, Judge Bryan, Judge Boreman, and somebody else, and I got sued by somebody so it is broken now. It usually happens to most judges sooner or later.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Proxmire.

Senator PROXMIRE. In his testimony before the committee Mr. Casey said the following, "The judge who presided over the case," he is referring to the Fields case, "did a highly unusual thing. He called in

four attorneys and said to them the verdict was not supported by the evidence in the case."

Now, from what you told us this afternoon, that doesn't seem to be your recollection; is that correct?

Judge CRAVEN. No; that is not my recollection.

Senator PROXMIRE. Are you quite positive this was not the case on the basis of your experience and whether or not such a charge would have probably been made by you?

Judge CRAVEN. I am as reasonably sure about it as you can be 9 years and 2 days later.

Senator PROXMIRE. Then Mr. Casey added that the judge said he would set the verdict aside and he recommended that the parties_get together and settle. He was going to set their verdict aside and unless the attorneys could settle it he would call for a new trial.

Judge CRAVEN. I am perfectly confident that I never told both sides that I would set a verdict aside. There may have been discussion of it. There was a motion pending to set the verdict aside. No judge in his right mind who wants to get a case settled is going to make it perfectly clear to both parties how he is going to rule on it. You just don't do that in my business so I am sure I didn't say that.

Senator PROXMIRE. So you are saying that you are positive that you did not say this. If you had, although it was 9 years and 2 days ago, you would remember?

Judge CRAVEN. Yes, I am sure I would. My recollection is that I thought the verdict was amply supported by the evidence and I would not have set the verdict aside and I don't think I said I would.

Senator PROXMIRE. Did you say amply?

Judge CRAVEN. Yes.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now elsewhere during the hearings I questioned Mr. Casey on the circumstances under which the trial transcript was sealed from public view and Mr. Casey said that after the matter had been settled the plaintiff asked the judge if he could get a copy of the summation that his lawyer made. Apparently the judge didn't like this and he said that since the case had been settled and there would be no appeal and no one to transcribe the record he was ordering the record sealed. This was done by my attorney, my attorney tells me, on the judge's initiative.

Judge CRAVEN. Yes. Mr. Casey's memory and mine coincide exactly on Mr. Fields wanting a copy of his lawyer's speech to the jury. We agree on that. The rest of it-of course I had no reason in the world to seal the record. I wasn't interested in it at that time nor am I now. Senator PROXMIRE. If you had ordered the record sealed do you feel you would recall that?

Judge CRAVEN. Yes, I did order the record sealed but in response to a request.

Senator PROXMIRE. But had you taken the initiative?

Judge CRAVEN. No. Let's go back a moment-excuse me, Senator Proxmire, you hung me up on that word "amply." I said amply supported by the testimony. Now I have no vivid recollection of the testimony 9 years later. Here I am trying to distinguish between reconstruction and actual recall, and it is hard to do that that long ago. My recollection is that there was ample evidence, if you believed it,

leaving out the credibility question for the jury. But there was ample evidence if you believed it to support the verdict. Perhaps I ought to say a little more about that.

My memory is that what happened in the case, and you have seen the transcript or somebody has, I haven't

Senator PROXMIRE. Yes. We have copies of the transcript.

Judge CRAVEN. I haven't seen the transcript. But I think a young kid working for Mr. Casey who may not have known any better, I don't want to put the bite on him, he may have done it out of stupidity and ignorance or out of chicanery, I don't know which; but some young kid out of law school apparently had made this Chinese copy of Mr. Fields' manuscript. As to the extent of Mr. Casey's involvement with his employee, the kid's work of making the copy, I just don't know. It has been a long time.

Senator PROXMIRE. Did you at any time ever indicate that you were appalled or disturbed or words to that effect by the jury's verdict? Judge CRAVEN. No. I expected the verdict.

Senator PROXMIRE. What was your charge to the jury on punitive damages; do you recall that?

Judge CRAVEN. No.

Senator PROXMIRE. Did the jury award punitive damages?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't know. According to the New York Times, yes. Senator PROXMIRE. This was your judgment, and I quote from the transcript:

If you find in this case from the evidence and by its greater weight that tak ing of plaintiff's manuscript came about willfully intentional or through a reckless wanton disregard of the plaintiff's right, and if you further find all of this was done with malice, vindictiveness, then you may, but do not have to, award exemplary or punitive damages to the plaintiff.

Now, the award was compensatory damages of $20,000, punitive damages of $12,850 against Mr. Casey, Sr., for IPP of $8,575. That is what the transcript discloses.

Judge CRAVEN. No verdict against Prentice-Hall?

Senator PROXMIRE. You withdrew them from the suit. That was your recollection, as I recall?

Judge CRAVEN. No; my recollection was the other way, I was testifying from the docket papers.

Senator PROXMIRE. Can you describe what took place immediately following the jury's verdict in the Fields case?

Judge CRAVEN. Nothing, we went home, it was 10 o'clock at night. Senator PROXMIRE. How was the verdict destroyed?

Judge CRAVEN. It was destroyed. I have wondered, frankly. I told this story so many times before privately; I never told it publicly before.

When I told it privately, I was careful to protect the participants: I never told the names. But around bar meetings all lawyers tell stories, and this is one of the best courtroom stories I ever heard.

It was the best one I knew. So I told it literally dozens of times. I said to my secretary this morning I wonder if in telling it over the decade, almost, if maybe I embellished it a little on the theory of why spoil a good story with the facts.

But I don't think I have. What I am leading up to is the way we destroyed the verdict. I don't mean what I said before is subject to