Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-07-03
L "SHADOW'S" COMPENSATION.
& SPECIAL POLICEMAN GETS TEST
M0NY FOR A DIVORCE CASE.
Attorney Anderson Says Robert Good Is
Guilty of Blackmail, But Good
Gets Judgment.

A peculiar suit was heard in Justice OF
the Peace Devine's Court yesterday.
Robert Good, special policeman, was
the plaintiff. and John l.. Woods, whose
name has appeared frequently in public
print of late on account of his family
troubles, was the defendant. Good sued to
recover $40 alleged to be due him for serv-
ices rendered as detective in digging up
testimony whereby Woods was to secure a
divorce from his wife.
On the stand Good told how he had been
engaged in the capacity of shadow" by
Woods and his attorney, W. A. Anderson,
and went on to relate how he had watched
certain actions" at certain place" and
at a certain time"
Judge Devine insisted that the witness
should be more explicit. He did not pro.
pose to pass judgment on q case, he said,
when all the facts were being suppressed.
Good thereupon gave the details, adding
that he was to receive 500 for the job. He
had only been paid $50, hence the suit for
the remaining $40, Woods having secured
the desired divorce from his wife.
w. A. Root testified that he, too, had
been engaged as shadow" and under
stood that Goods compensation was to be
500 if the divorce was secured.
Attorney w. A. Anderson then took the
stand for the defense, and his testimony
was of decidedly sensational character.
ut was who employed this man." he
said, pointing to Good, land / agreed to
pay him So day, but after couple of
days l found that he was rendering us no
service, and was bleeding my client, SO l
dropped him. 1 did not drop him out
right, though, because I was afraid he
would betray our case to the other side
Afterwards my client and 1 told him we
would pay him 500 if he could secure evil
dence sufficient to procure a divorce and
the custody of my clients child. l soon
found, though, that he was giving our
plans away to the other side. He did not
do what he was told to do. He had
agreed to watch in a cellar for GER
tain developments, but when the time
came he was too cowardly to do it. He
never got bit of testimony for us. When
| asked him about certain things that
knew he ought to know about, he would
say he did not know. knew what that
meant-it was more blackmail Every
time he met Woods on the street he would
strike him for couple of dollars"
DO you consider that blackmail?" asked
Judge Tubbs, Goods attorney.
Most assuredly 1 do" replied Mr. Ander-
son.
Continuing. Mr.. Anderson said the
money Woods paid the shadow" was in
the nature of hush money" in order to
keep Good from telling the other side
what they were doing. He betrayed US
just the same, though" said Mr.. Anderson.
He told the very man we wanted to catch
about it, and also told Mrs Woods that we
were watching her. know that of my
own knowledge. The woman herself said
that that greasy man from Jim Senate had
been around to see her. paid him SIS
myself to keep still. He made fuss, and
wanted more, so l promised to get some
money for him, to keep him quiet"
John L. Woods, the defendant, gave
testimony similar to that of his attorney.
Judge Devine, in passing judgment, in
timated that the business Good had en-
gagged in was not the most commendable,
still, he believed that contract had been
entered into. and, although Goods testi-
mony had not been used at the trial of the
divorce case, the contract had, to certain
extent, been fulfilled. He therefore gave
judgment to Good for $51 so.