The morning call., 1891-03-26
AMES AS A WITNESS.
His Social Relations With His
Client Were for Business.

Department Of the Superior Court, Judge
Hunt. was well filed with interested spec
tatOrs yesterday morning when the case OF
Fisher Ames against Mrs. Mabel Treadwell,
To recover So, 600 for services rendered, was
called. The plaintiff again took the stand
and in a few moments Attorney Dunno,
who had been conducting the direct exam
iRation, siguifed that the witness was at
the disposal for crOss-eXamination by Mr..
Van Ness, REPRESENTING the defendant
Attorney Van Ness is considered a clever
eross-examiner, a fact plainly percep!ibe as
he piled Ames with questions, drawing
from him the minutest details concerning
his legal transactions on behalf Of Mrs.
TreadwelI, and eXacting thorough explain
alton of every statement made during the
direct examination. Anes replied deliber-
aiely and cautiously, but with all his
knowledge Of the law and his calm deliber-
alton over every question asked, Van Ness
frequently drew from him contradictory
and damaging statements.
The object of the crOss-eXaminatiOn dur
Ing the forenoon was TO show TO the jury by
Ames' own testimony that the work per-
formed by him in the case Of Ray VS.. Butler
was not in fact tedious and drduOuS, but, on
the contrary, very light, the assistance Of
Hall McAllister, leading counsel in the lltl-
cation. being vOuchsafed him at all times
that none of the cases cited in his brief on
appeal bore upon the real point involved.
At the time the controversy was in progress
he deemed OF greater Importance other con-
tentlous, In the establishment OF which the
cases were cited.
The witness stated that Calvin F. Som
ers, who was employed by him to draft the
amendments to the statement on motion for
new trial was at once the most competent
and incompetent law clerk he had ever
-HaNa
tain facility for the work in hand, which,
however, was rendered nugat0ry by his
unprecedented dishonesty. lie was utterly
unreliable.
Ames then proceeded to explain his con-
nectiOn with the cases, to prosecute or de-
fend which lie was employed by Mrs. Tread
We'll and when asked whether he did not
consider 1t at least indiscreet to employ
such a man as SOmers TO assist him in con-
Quoting a case involving property valued at
100000 the witness answered In the mega
tive.
Reference was again made to the meeting
between Mrs. Treadwell, SOmers and the
witness on September %, 1887, and to the
SIGNING of the receipt for 5000 on that oc-
casion. Ames reiterated that he had never
served the defendant as legal adviser in her
capacity OF guardian of her minor children,
although the receipt under consideration
was drafted IN such form as TO be pre-
seutable to the Probate Judge as evidencing
the expenditure OF the sum Of $1,000 Of the
estate of the children.
Mr.. Van Ness wished to know whether,
considering the fact that no service had
been rendered the children, Mr. Ames did
not feel that he had committed deliberate
swindle in making it appear that the charge
was upon the estate, but the witness re-
fused TO look at the matter in that light
Ames declined to admit having had social
relations with Mr.. and Mrs. Somers or Mrs.
Treadwell. although he accompanied them
TO the theater and in drives in the park and
Oakland. He considered his caste infinitely
superior TO theirs, and would have none Of
Attorney Van Ness insinuations that he
sought their company other than for cold,
matter-of-fact business.
The trial will he resumed to-day