The evening world., 1894-07-19
JOSEPH INDICATED.
Justice Andrews Declares There Is
No Pretense of Bribery.
He Denies Lawyee Epstein's Motion
to Recover S629.
He Alleged $500 or II Was Paid to
xix" a Judge.

Lawyer Abraham Joseph. OF 20 Broad
way. who was charged two weeks ago by
Lawyer George II. Epstein. OF 200 Siuad-
way, with having charged client $50
for 'hxing' "A city Court Judge, was
vindicated to-day by the decision Of SUI
preme Court Justice Andrews. He dis
missed Epetcin's motion to compel .Jo-
seph to pay $3.50 to Mrs Goldenson, Ep-
STEMS client.
The decision Of Justice Andrews also
vindicates Chief Justice Ehrlich. of the
City Court.
The original suit of Mrs. Goldenson, in
which Joseph acted as her attorney, was
against the Bowery Savings Rank to re-
cover moneys on deposit, which had been
given to her by the depositor, now dead.
Justice Ehrlich allowed the plaintiff
Subsequently Mrs. Goldenson employ ed
Lawyer Epstein to recover $500 from
Lawyer Joseph. which, she alleged, he
was holding back. This came up as a
his answer Lawyer Joseph alleged lat
from the S629 there was to be deducted
500, which Mrs. Goldcnson had, under a
written agreement. consented to pay
to secure his services In the original suit
against the Savings Bank
Lawyer Epstein replied that Joseph had
scr wss 10 G rs the G @dse that the
Joseph denounced this ac rusa lion "a a
lie. Tho decision of Justice Andrews Is
as follows.
case Is not made out which would Justify
attorney 10 pay over money and In casting y
stigma upon his character. All the statements
that ,Sc @ ' OF scs was "" opnne% sp
false representation H. to what was to he done
with It are contradic'sd IN tho answering az
hdavits, and there are several circumstances
which tend 10 prove that such statements in the
moving papers are untrue,
The assignment ~ tho $500 is dated March H.
1894, which was tho day on which tho action In
the city Court was tried. and vet the petitioner
and her husband and son-n law all swear that
the application for the $500 and the execution Of
the assignment took place two or three weeks
after the trial
name was used merely AZ cover. hut u liz IN
disputed that he tried the srtion and was sue
qu"n'ly wrote letter to Herman Joseph in
dtcnantly asserting what III" claimed to be
her rights. she mad" no slnsion to W'nbers.
" Mrs. 'iOldenson and her attorney believe
that she has just claim against the sttorney
she should bring action At law against him on
can be examined and cross examined In open
court.
II is hardly necessary to add that there is not
the slightest rretense on the part nj the peti-
toner or her attorney ar any one else that tho
$500 or any part of 1t was used for bribery or
was ~ any benent 10 any one excepting Herman
Joseph. Motion denied.
Justice Ehrlich stated to-day that he
would await developments before taking
any action or determining whether any
thing should be done He intimat ted
that contempt proceedings may be com
menced later.
Later in the day Judge Ehrlich said
that under Justice Andrewss opinion
he did not see that there was any action
that he could take.
Lawyer Herman Joseph stated that az
soon as he could prepare the moving
papers he would make Il motion to have
Lawyer Epsteiu Mrs. Goldenson, Louis
ioldenson and the latter's son-in-law
brought before the Court. He did not
state Just what charges would be made
against them.