The morning call., 1893-06-14
WANTEDTOO MUCH
Joe Rotheniid Accused of
ExtOrtion.
A Jury Says That He Shall Give
Back Two-Thirds of Fee He
Charged Mrs. Lutz.

The exact value of an attorneys sell
vices on special cases was what puzzled q
jury in Judge Hunts court yesterday.
August and Katie Lutz were a happily
united couple for some years until one day
in January last. when August disappeared
from home and went around town visiting
various saloons and keeping up a royal
spree for two days. On the second day his
wife became alarmed, not so much for
Augusts safety as for the safety of $1,000
which the pair had on deposit at the Ger
man Bank, being part of their community
property.
Fearing that her husband would call in
at the bank and draw the money out, Mrs.
Lutz resolved to invoke the aid of the law.
So she called on Attorney Joseph Roth
child and asked him what was TO be done.
Now comes the point at issue. Mrs.
LutZ says that she never expressed any
did she give Rothchild any authority to
file any such suit. Nevertheless Roth
child did institute divorce proceedings on
his fair clients behalf, and pending the
issue of the action obtained a RESTRAINING e
order from Judge CARRIER as presiding
Judge preventing the withdrawal of any
of the community properly from the bank
without the wife's Signature
Then, according to the testimony, Roth
child went down to the German Bank. in
company with Mrs. LutZ, aud drew out
$3.50, which he said he would require as
lees and expenses in the suit. This sum
he put in his pocket.
But the next day the erIing husband re-
turned to the domestic hearth and all was
forgotten. August promised that his fu-
ture conduct should be as that of a Kelley
graduate, and on her part the wife felt
horror-strickeD al the hasty measures she
had adopted. So the pair made up their
difference and proceeded arm in arm to
Rothchlld'S office, where they Informed
their attorney hat they did not want any
divorce, and that all legal proceedings
were at an end. Then they demanded an
accounting OF the $3.50. but Rothehild
claimed that the money belonged to him and
he would not give it up. So the Lutz fnm-
lily brought an action against Rothchi Id
to recover $500 of the money.
In court the wife swOre positively that
when she allowed Rothchiid to draw $3.50
she had no idea that he meant to keep it
all as his fee. She understood that $3.50
was the stipulated sum and that the bal
ance of $500 was for her use and benefit,
as well as for any emergencies. In sup
port of this the plaintiff subpenaed attor-
neys w. j. Tuska, George G. Sargent and
Franklin Bull, all Of whom testified as
experts that in their judgment $3.50 would
be a reasonable charge for the services
rendered.
On the other side Attorney Young testi-
fed that he thought $3.50 was not an un-
reasonable charge; and ATTORNEY Charles
+. HanlOn said that perhaps $500 or S400
would be about the mark.
But the last-named attorney spread con-
sternaton in the camp when questioned on
the authority to sue given by Mrs. Lutz to
Rohchiid. He said that if any attorney
filed suit for divorce unreauested by his
client that attorney should not only re-
cejye no pav. but should even he dis
barred.
The jury found verdict for the plaintiff
in the sum OF $500, the amount sued for.