The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-07-21
GOGGIN Is SUED.
Francis & Valentines ST.
lent Partner.
SERIOUS CHARGES MADE.
He Is Accused of Taking More
Than His Share.
HIS REAL ESTATE PURCHASES.
Shamrock Lodge at Belvedere and
Valuable Van Ness Avenue
Holdings.
HIS REAL ESTATE PURCHASES

time past in the printing and publishing
house of Francis, Valentine & Co. 1t Is
between Francis and Valentine on the one
side and E..W. Goggin. the third member
of the firm. on the other.
The nature of the trouble was revealed
In complaint that mas been filed 10 tho
County Clerks Office and In which +. w.
Goggin and bis wife, Sarah GoRgin. are made
defendants. Serious allegations are made
against Mr.. Goggin by his two partners to
the extent of actually charging him with
making away with money belonging to
the firm and using it for his personal
benefit.
Prior to 1878. the complaint states. Mr..
Goggin had been a sort OF managing fore
man for the firm of Francis & Valentine.
In November of that year they entered
into an agreement with him whereby on
the LIST of January, 1873. he was to be ad-
mitted as member of the firm upon cer-
tain conditions. An agreement was drawn
up and signed by all three. which was TO
continue for five years.
1t is upon this agreement that Mr.
Goggin's standing Ia the firm rests. Ac-
cordiDg to 1t he was to receive 800 a week
and further and full compensation for
services sum equal to 5 per cent OF the
profits of the business. In return Mr.
Goggin agreed to devote his entire time
and attention to managing and superln-
tending tho department which he had
had charge of before. He was also to use
all his in fluence among his friends to In
crease the business.
Mesers. Francis and Valentine. how
ever, were to still have entire charge OF
the balance of the business and receive
and disburse all money and have control
of all books and papers. They were to
make yearly statement OF the net amount
of profits and losses at the end OF each
year. In this statement Francis and Val
entine were to include the amount OF the
value of their personal services.
1t was also understood by the agree
meut that Mr.. Goggin should not acqulr .
any ownership in any Of the capital
stock, machinery or material used in the
business. or In the good will thereof.
Neither did the agreement give Mr.. Goggin
the right or privilege Of examining the
books of the firm. or to sign the irm's
name to any check, promissory note. or to
transact any of the financial affairs Of the
firm.
This close binding agreement was ad.
herod TO through the five years following
January, 1879, and in January. 1883. it was
renewed upon the Same terms for another
five years, beginning with 1884.
Affairs apparently went along smoothly
in the firm until August, 1888, when another
agreement was made. BY this time evil
IDENTIFY Mr.. GogRin was looking after an
increase in his annual percentage. and he
got it.
Another contract for five years was made
to 60 into effect In 1889. In which Mt.
Goggin's prerogatives were understood to
remain unchanged, but instead of per
cent of tho profits be was thereafter to re-
ceived ~ per cent, and this same figure
remained In the next five-years' agreement
which went into effect last January.
Messrs. Francis & Valentine then 60 on
to state in, the complaint that they per-
formed their part of the agreement in all
the contracts which had been made, but
they are just rs positive that Mr.. Goggin
has betrayed them on his side.
They assert that since the beginning of
the contract Mr.. Goggin has from time to
time and without the consent Of the plain
tiffs collected. received and applied to his
own use large sums of money belonging to
the firm and failed to account for the same.
These sums. the plaintiffs say. were fully
$4,000 in excess of the proportion to which
be was entitled under the items of the
original contract and supplemental agree
ments.
Furthermore, they maintain that tho de-
PENDANT still continues to collect the Co
partnership credits and moneys due the
firm and apply the same to his own use.
all of which sums Of money greatly exceed
the proportion of what is due him.
After setting forth these facts the plain
tffs 20 on to state what they think their
partner has done with the money they
charge him with having taken.
On February 8. 1887. Mr.. Goggin pur-
chased from Sampson Tams the property
on Van Ness avenue. where he now lives.
It is No. 1913. near jackson street. This
property, they say, was bought and paid
for out of the money taken from the firm,
and after purchase it was decided to his
wife, Sarah. without consideration.
Other property purchased In similar
manner, according to the complaint. and
decided to his wife Is % follows: On Janu.
ary 20, 1891, from Antoine Borel, property
on the west SIDE of Madrid street. near
Brazil avenue; on September !. 1891. from
Jacob Heyman. property on tha southeas t
line of Louisberg street, near Unadilla. In
the San Miguel Homestead.
Reference Is then made to Mr.. Goggin's
summer retreat at Belvadere, across the
bay. 1t is known as Shamrock Lodge"
and stands upon q lot 50x100 feet Tho
plaintiffs say that 1t Is handsomely fur
.;.n>a .oA <hat % ohla Smorovovna m, !.