Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-10-10
SIMPLE All SING.
A LITTLE LEARNING GETS HIM INTO
SERIOUS TROUBLE.
He Acquires the Ability to Write His
Own Name, But 1t Costs Him
Much Anguish.

About week ago there was published in
the RECORD UNION the statement that A.
Mouton, well-known hop-grower near
this city, had turned over several hundred
dollars to the Sheriff, under an attachment
levied by one Bagnell upon some money in
his hands belonging to Chinaman named
All Sing, after having already had portion
of the same money levied upon by another
creditor of All Sing. The only fact of in
terest that the case then seemed TO present
was this-that Mouton had laid himself
liable to serious loss by his ignorance of
legal methods. But the inside facts of the
case are coming to light, and they reveal
some things that may possess considerable
interest for the average reader.
W. Il. Bagnell, by his attorney, G. G..
Pickett, on the 18th of last month COM
menced an action in the Superior Court
against All Sing, in which complaint it was
alleged that the Chinaman was indebted to
Bagnell in the sum of $500. An attach
ment was issued, and some $500 was levied
upon in the hands of Mouton, who turned
it over to the Sheriff. The proceedings, to
all appearances, were perfectly regular, and
no one would for moment suspect that
there was anything wrong in the claim of
Bagnell.
An affidavit was, however, filed yester-
day afternoon by the said All Sing, through
his attorney, J. D. Brusie, from which, if
true, it would seem that the unfortunate
Chinaman has been the victim of some
what novel conspiracy. The affidavit goes
on to state that the affiant is native of
China and unable to read or write the
10 NIT tha Sc L
ing able to write his own name-which &C.
complishment it seems is the sole cause of
the difficulties that go to make up this
legal tale OF woe. 1t states that w. II.
Bagnell and e. G. Pickett, knowing that
Mouton owed the Chinaman some $500 for
picking hops, set about to contrive some
means by which they, too, might have a
chance to gather in some of All Sings
hop-money.
So, with that idea in view, w. Fl. Bagnell
Through his attorney filed the complaint
above referred to, but was very careful not
have Alb Sing served with the summons.
They then instructed Mouton (who, for
tunately, is not able to read or write Eng
llsh) that, If the Chinaman should come to
him, to say that the Sacramento Lumber
Company had garnished the money he
owed the Chinaman, and that he had
turned it over to the Sheriff. Whether the
Chlnaman did go TO Mouton or not, is not
stated in the affidavit, but the latter dis
closes the following alleged transaction:
That All Sing, hearing that his money
was attached, and that Pickett was the
attorney, went to Picketts office for the
purpose OF finding out just what the mat
ter was. He found Bagnell and Pickett
there together, and they told him that the
Sacramento Lumber Company had at
hr1t hot {lo,, Ia
get his money if he (Ah Singl would paw
them $40. The Chlnaman agreed to the
proposition and handed over the $40
Pickett then prepared a paper for All
Sing to sign. The latter asked what it
was, and Pickett told him it was a de-
mand and receipt, which would have to
be given to the Sheriff before he would
give up the money.
All Sing then signed two papers which
he supposed were receipt" and de
mand." Upon examination, however, it
was found that one signature was attached
to confession of judgment" and the
other accompanied by very concise sac.
encouragement" and is attested by Pickett
as Notary Public.
This confession of judgment was then
hled with the Clerk, who entered judg-
ment, and upon the presentation of a GER
tined copy TO the Sheriff the latter passed
over the $500 to Bagnell, who immediately
held very private interview with his at.
torney, and then decamped for parts re.
mote, leaving poor All Sing to curse the
day he ever learned to write his name.
Such is the brief synopsis of a yery
long affidavit which winds up by asking
the Court to set aside the Judgment and
direct the return of the money to the
hands of the Sheriff. Some very interest
ing testimony will no doubt be adduced
upon the hearing of the affidavit.