The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1894-11-20
SHELTON CAMPBELL ISLANDER CASE.
How Judgment by Skeletons Default
Was Rendered.
More Affidavits Filed by Lawyers
Humphrey and Isaac Joseph
in Explanation.

II. w. Humphrey has filed an affidavit
in the Superior Court in answer to that
of II. w. Johnson relative 10 the motion
to set aside the judgment in favor of w.
r. Campbell and against John SHELTON,
which was given by default. Humphrey
states that, as a matter of accommodation,
he remained in the employ of Johnson
q Johnson, attorneys-at-law, part of the
month OF October and until November
OH for the purpose OF continuing such
causes and matters as the firm of john
son IL Johnson was interested in and to
attend 10 what business he could for the
firm; that the notice Of motion TO dismiss
and the affidavit of Isaac Joseph, attOr
noy Tor defendant in the SANDER suit of
Shelton VS.. Campbell were served upon
the office OF Johnson Il Johnson during
the absence Of both members OF the firm.
Humphrey further states in his ailida-
Wit that up to that time he had not heard
OF the action and knew nothing about it,
and on the DAY The motion came up, &C.
tOber 10Th. he was in the courtroom of
Department Two, and Mr.. Joseph spoke
to him anu salu III substance That there
WAS Il little motion TO dismiss an action
thas had been pending a great number of
-
and he presumed there was no opposl-
ton to it; that atfianG told Joseph that be
knew nothing whatsoever about the mo-
ton or the cause. and Joseph replied III
substance that 1t amounted to nothing
anyway.
Humphrey states that thereupon he
dismissed the matter from his mind and
was astonished subsequently to learn
that the action had been dismissed and
judgment entered i'll favor OF defendant;
that up 10 the time Joseph spoke TO ath-
ant in the courthouse aliant was not
aware OF the motion or OF anything relat-
ing to the action. and that he did not ut
any time know that the dismissal OF the
action involved The entry OF judgment for
500 or any other sum in favor of the de-
teudant; that ii atiiant had known this
fact. OF nad been familiar with the case,
he would have asked for continuance Of
the same until the return OF the john
sons.
Humphrey further states that he relied
upon the statement of Joseph that it was
a little matter, involving nothing and
amounting to nothing, and gave the mat
ter no further attention until alter he was
asked by Hiram w. Johnson as TO the
entry OF the judgment III the case; that if
the statement of Joseph had not been
made To the ai1iant, atllant would have
opposed the motion to dismiss, or at least
ISAAC JosEPH's AFFIDAvIT.
Lawyer Joseph has also filed an affi-
davit III the matter. He says that on
October 18th he made motion III court
dismissing the action after due notice had
been given TO the attorneys for Shelton,
and that the notice OF dismissal and proof
OF service are on file and made part of the
affidavit. Also, that on October 18th The
cause was regularly on the law calendar
fNf Dptya mt Iy.tn WIN
called in the court Humphrey, who at
that time represented the firm OF Johnson
* Johnson, was present, and his atten-
ton was called by alfiant to the fact that
the cause had been called. At that time
substantially the following conversation
took place between Humphrey and
atfiaRt:
Joseph-Are you attending to the law
business of Johnson u johnson?
Humphrey-Yes
Joseph-There is on the law calendar
to-day motion to dismiss a case in
which Johnson u Johnson represent the
plaintiff.
Humphrey-Whatc case is it?
Joseph-A SANDER suit, commenced
some years ago by John Skeleton against
w. x. Campbell.
Humphrey Hiram Johnson has not
given me any instruction about any such
case.
JoSeph-No coun ter-athdavits have
been filed in the case on behalf of plaintiff,
so presume that the JohnsonS do not in
tend to oppose the motion to dismiss.
Joseph denies in his affidavit that he
intended to mislead Humphrey, and
states that he does not believe that any
thing he said on that occasion, or at any
time, had any such effect. lie states that
his object in calling Humphreys atten-
ton TO the matter was for the purpose of
assuring himself of the fact that Hum
phrey, as the representative of the attor-
neys tor SHELTON. did not unconsciously
overlook the matter Of the proposed dis
miSsal OF the action.
Joseph also states that on two occasions
| he conversed with Humphrey in refer
ence to the matter, and that Humphrey
did not at any time prior to the date OF
his affidavit allege or intimate that afIiant
/ tJosephl had mlsled him; that on one OF
| the occasions, November LIST, at atlantis
office, in the presence of William S.
Howe, Humphrey stated in substance to
atliant that he found no fault with
Joseph's conduct in relation to the mo-
| ton to dismiss the action.
" lillian 5. Howe, the young man re-
ferred to in Joseph's affidavit, has also
! filed an affidavit. III which he states that
Humphrey said ne found no fault with
Joseph's conduct.
BICYCLE exercise, according to Miss
/