Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-03-03

Mr.. Borden in an instrument which
he was shown. The certificate at
tached was in the hand writing OF
John Bozarovich.
Sheldon BORDEN
Testified that he knew Mr.. East and
that he had written the abstract in
question. He did not think Mr.. East
had written the certificate attached.
g. j. CLARK
Testified that he knew Mr.. East and
also knew Messrs. Borden and Yorba.
The certificate was written by. yohn
Bozarovich.
II. MILLER
Testified that he knew Mr.. A. j.
Viele and also the defendant. He
had met Mr.. Vinette and Mr.. Ran
dali. (Shown note from Mr.. Randall
to Mr.. Vinette.) He had seen the
note, and on one occasion had taken
it to collect the interest from Mr..
Randall. The note had never been
shown to either Mr.. Randall or Mr.,
Vinette by witness.
Cross-examined: Left a card at
Mr.. Randall's house. Mr.. Randall
never came to the office to see about
the note. Went to collect the interest
in October, 1887. The interest was
not paid at that time. Never told Mr..
Viele that Mr.. Randall would not pay
the note. Never saw Mr.. Randall at
the office. He did not visit the Office
in an hour after the card was left for
him. Mr.. Arthur Vinette called at
the office, but l did not show him the
note. I did not have any interest in
the note. Mr.. Viele said that Mr..
East paid the interest. Did not know
that Mr.. East had left the note there
to sell.
A. B. EAST,
The defendant, testified: 1 met Mr..
Vinette in April, 1887. 1 have been
practicing law for twenty years. 1
have resided in Los Angeles since
November, 1886. Prior to the time 1
made out the deed for Messrs. Ran
dali & Vinette had no acquaintance
with either of them, made out the
deed, mortgage and note, and also
gave written opinion on the title.
An abstract was given to the witness,
which was identified as being in the
handwriting OF his daughter.) None
of the abstracts said by certain wit
nesses to have been made in my hand
writing were made by me. Not
word did l write. The first abstract
was not satisfactory and l was en-
ployed to make a second. 1t was
made by Johnston, Borden & Yorba.
/ do not know in whose hand
writing it is in, but, think, Mr.. Bor-
denis. The third abstract, which,
was also identified as my handwriting,
is copy of one made in April, 'S7,
and was made out by Mrs. Bush and
not by me. (The Randall mortgage
was exhibited to witness and the
writing identified as his own. The
note was handed to witness and ident-
flied as the one owned by w. H.
Vinette.) The endorsement, "pav to
the order Of" was written by me, but
civilian H. Vinette" was written by
Mr.. Vinette, in nay office. The other
endorsements on the note l think l
made myself. The statement by
Vinette that he did not sign the note
is false. The relations l have had
with Mr.. Broadbere, who testified as
an expert, have been very unsatis-
factory and We are not friendly.
Cross examined: MIR. Vinette left
the note and mortgage with me
the very day they were executed. He
tried to sell them to me at the time.
The papers were never out Of my
possession after the sale except when
1 left them with different parties in
order to negotiate them. do not re-
member the exact date when the en-
dorsement was made, but it was
made in my office and by Vinette. 1
had told him he must do so in order
that the note might be salable. The
reason for making a second alb
stract was for the reason that
in the first the homestead
clause was considered a cloud
on the title by many, and we were
unable to sell the note. Vinette asked
me if could not make an abstract
and leave that out. / told him l
could, as l did not consider it as
effecting the title. l received $40 for
making out the deed and mortgage,
but nothing for the services. He is
now owing me for professional SER
vice. He gave me nothing for the
written opinion on the title. At this
point the court adjourned until 9 A.
NJ, to-day,