The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-01-29
The Bar Association Makes
Grave Charges.
KOWALSKY, HOWE, NAPTHALY
The Three Attorneys Accused of I'M
professional Conduct-To Weed the
Bar of Unworthy Members.

Kowalsky. George w. Howe and b. F.
Napthaly.
The Bar Association has committee on
grievances consisting Of James q. Mcguire,
Columbus Bartlett. II. a. Powell. Sheldon
G.. Kellogg and Donald Y. Campbell. To
this committee are referred complaints con-
corning attorneys for investigation.
The committee has had the three cases re-
ferred TO In hand since December 80 last,
and yesterday handed in to the body Of the
association its report, which was adopted.
The report was in four sections, one find
ing in the case Of George ID. Collins, accused
of excessive charges ia the suit of Frances
Bertolacci VS.. the Pacific Endowment
League, that the matter should properly be
settled In civil action between the parties,
and that the evidence did not justify any
action by the association.
The longest section OF the report related
TO ii. l. Kowalsky, and the investigation
covered the proceedings lately 10 Judge
Cotfey's court in the matter of the estate OF
c. L. 5. Macdonald, deceased.
These proceedings are still fresh in the
minds OF the reading public. but in view OF
the length of time over which they were
protracted a brief resume, as presented in
the report, may be necessary for clear
understanding of the circumstances.
On March q, 1890, Z. j. Corbett was ap-
pointed guardian of Henry Macdonald. the
minor claimant Of the estate. and j. ID.
Sullivan and II. 1. Kowalsky acted as Cor
belts attorneys.
Upon his appointment p. j. Corbett con-
tracted with Sullivan TO pay Sullivan one
half Of all money received for Henry Mac
donald from the estate, sullivan 10 pay all
costs. Sullivan entered into contract
with KOwalsky to pay him one-haf Of the
fee received nv him ont Qf auV recovery on
behalf on Henry
Attorneys Sullivan and Kowalsky sue
cessfully established the hership of Henry
to tho estate and on October 8, 1892 $1,000
OF the whole 100000 due was paid to guard
ian C0rbett on behalf of his ward.
Kowalsky on the same day received from
Corbett $500 without any order of court.
The next day COrbett was advised By
Judge COffey OF Department 9 not 10 pay
any money except on a court order.
On October Sullivan and kowalsky
asked Corbett for $500 on account of fees,
but were denied, and then Kowalsky ap-
piled TO Judge Coitey for an order for that
sum on Corbett. but was refused.
kowalsky then discovered that the guar.
danshiD proceedings had never been as.
signed to Department 9, where Judge Cof-
fey presides, and were still III Department
TO- where Judge Levy rules. He therefore
wrote to Judge Coffey apologizing for
troubling him in the matter.
His next step was 10 apply to Judge Levy
for an order for the $500, but the Judge
refused to grant 1t except upon hearing in
open court
phoned TO Sullivan that lie was quite sure
to get the order from Judge Levy
and requesting the guardian TO have the
money on hand. Corbett therefore drew
the money and brought 1t to Sulivan's
Office, where K0waisky stated that Judge
Levy IN a conversation had said he would
sign the order. but would require an afli-
daylt.
On this showing Corbett paid over the
$500 to kOwalsky.
Judge Levy then refused to sign the order
as before. and kowalsky went to Los An
geles on November 3.
The guardianship proceedings were then
transferred TO Department 9. Judge Coffey,
who directed the guardian to pay an allow
ance aggregating 10 December s. 1892, 1880
On November 4 Corbett had paid Kowasky
Sl400, and his employment of the money
was approved In open court.
But 5000 in addition to the S1400 was
claimed, and Corbett applied to Judge
Coffey for an order TO pay that out, but was
advised by kowalsky that il was unDeces-
safy, and therefore paid the money without
any order.
Kowalsky told Sullivan that this amount
required was covered by previous order
Of the court but $3.50 was not so covered.
The court on an accounting dishIlowed all
payments to Guardian COrbast except
1880, under order of November 3. 1892
Neither Sullivan nor KOwalsky has re-
turned 10 Guardian Corbett any of III g
money received.
Such are the facts upon which the co M
mittee bases its findings as follows:
We find that Hi Kowalsky is guilty OF I'M
professional conduct in representing TO COrbett
aud Sullivan on the On OF October 1892. that
a N ak an
he payment Of $500 in addition 10 the $500
received by said kOwalsky the previous day
when the Judge had informed Kowasky that he
would not make such an order and would not
consider any application for such order except
upon regular notice and hearing in open court
And We fiud that said representation made by
said kowalsky 10 said Sullivan aud Corbett was
false and was made for Tie purpose of inducing
Cofbett TO pay bin on october 6, 1892. the sum
OF $500, IN addition 10 The sum OF $500 Also
that L. j. COrbett WAS deceived la the matter OF
the payment OF the 5000
We therefore recommend that a committee be
appointed to present a charge of unprufessiouaI
conduct against II. l. Kowalsky to The Supreme
Court in order that the said court may take such
action In The premises as may be Just and
proper.
The committee also in the same connec-
ton investigated the alleged misconduct of
Otto tum SUDDEN in relation to the estate of
e. +. Macdonald, deceased, IL being charged
that SUDDEN had procured witness 10 insult
and Willy Judge Coffey, aud attempted to
corruptly Influence witness TO testify
falsely in said contest AS result the
committee found that Tum SUDDEN did not
attempt in any manner to corruptly infiu-
euce any witness in the matter Of the said
contest.
Another case was that of George w.
Howe.
An investigation. into his professional
conduct was Instituted on the com plant of
George A. Ingraham of TIC Henry street. 10
the effect shat on May q, 1892. and for a
long time prior 10 that and ever since, said
George w. Howe published the following
advertisement of his business:
Advice free on all legal matters; specially,
marriages annulled quick. quiet; sulls COM
menced in any county; collections, claims, dam
ages, liens, attachments, etc, enforced; legal
documents prepared; suits OF every description
defended or prosecuted vigorously; terms rea-
sOnable; no charges unless successful; eight
criminal and civil lawyers practIciug IN all the
courts; established Ten years references banks
aud business houses. George w. Howe q Co.,
attorneys and councillors al law.
The committee discovered that on May
27, 1892 George A. Ingraham was induced
by said advertisement TO consult Howe in
relation to the institution of a civil action
for libel against a mercantile agency. That
he was referred by said Howe to one Noah
f. Flood in the employ OF Howe. Flood
advised him that he had good case, and re-
cues ed deposit OF SIS TO cover the tmme-
date costs or the contemplated action and
the further sum Of So, normally as re-
tanning fee, but really a guarantee of
good faith aud to secure Howe against any
change OF purpose or the part OF Ingraham
by reason Of which he might employ an
other LAWYER
Ingraham paid this $40 on the under
standing that there would be no charge
unless the action succeeded, and got
receipt from Howe. lngraham was in
strucled TO obtain names and statements of
witnesses, and upon his return was referred
to another attorney not connecled with
Howe's establishment TO have complaint
drawn up. This attorney advised Mr. lu-
graham that in order to commence an action
for libel 1t was necessary to file a bond
with two sufficient sureties in the sum OF
$500 for pur oses specified in the statute,
This Mr.. Ingraham, being stranger, was
unable 10 do.
He therefore demanded back his $40. but