The morning call., 1891-08-13
1T is BLACKMAIL."
Dismissal of the Houston Suit by
Justice Field.
He Also States That the Attorney Attempting
to Bring Such an Action Should
Be Disbarred.

"On the merits OF the bill, which l have
read carefully, would dismiss the suit. 1t
is barefaced, impudent attempt to annoy
people. 1t is blacknlail of the worst sort.
There are too many of these cases now
going on. This is simply dsgraceful, aud any
attorney who would attempt to present such
a case should be disbarred. 1 am ready to
entertain a motion to that effect"
These were the words that rang out full
and strong in the United States Circuit
Court yesterday after Justice Field had
listened to the reading of an affidavit pre-
sented by the plaintiff. in order to stave off
motion TO dismiss the David Dell Houston
suit against the City and County of San
Francisco and 1900 residents for about all
the real estate in the corporate limits.
Justice Field and Judge Beatty were on
the bench when the motion to dismiss by the
city and county was read. Philip S. Teare
arose and asked for cont nuance, reading
IN support of his argument an affidavit from
j. b. Moore.
MooRE'S AFFIDAVIT.
The latter depoSed he is attorney-in- fact
Tor David Dell Houston and empowered to
act in all matters pertaining thereto for
him; that the complainant is and has been
at all times resident of New York State !;
that George w. Tyler, the attorney Of
record in said suit. has been at Seattle.
Wash, continuously for more than two
months; that no service CT order or motion
to dismiss said suit has ever been served on
defendant and If Oh complainant it must
have been done in the State of New York,
and if on said George w. Tyler it must have
been done at Seattle, Wash. that ever
since the departure of Tyler from San
Francisco the defendant has been trying TO
secure the services of another solicitor in
Iyler's stead and had done so, but had not
fully advised with him ON the merits of the
case to enable him to properly resist the
application for dismissal.
Attorney McCutcheOn for the defense
arose and Informed the Court that personal
notice had been served on George w. Tyler.
THE MOTION WAS DENIED.
Justice Field asked Attorney Teare
whether he made the motion by request
and Mr. Teare then arose and said it was
by request.
markable language quoted. He said that
upon motion he would not hesitate to disbar
any attorney upon such e record of facts as
is made up in the Houston case.
The j. X. Moore claim, which is embraced
in its entirety in the Houston case. COM
prised every foot of land in the city and
county, with the islands in the bay and the
Faral!ones. Moore claimed title through a
family named Marchina. 1t was claimed
that Manuel MicheltorenO, Governor of
Alta California, had, in 1874, by deed and
gift given all the land on the PENN
sula 10 one Fernando Marchina who
was at that time employed as a commissary
at the Preside. Nothing. however, ap-
peared on the records to snow that such a
deed had ever been executed.
No one ever heard of it until 1856, when
Moore, by his attorney. Joseph NJ. Kinley,
commenced suit in the Superior Court
against several hundred property owners
for possession of the land and mesne profits
for five years. This cast a cloud over land
titles and many settled with Moore by pay
ing him small sums for quit-claim deeds