The evening world. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, 1894-07-19
JOSEPH INDICATED.
Justice Andrews Declares There Is
No Pretense Of bribery.
He Denies Lawyer Epstein's Motion
to Recover $500.
The Latter Alleged $500 OF II Was
Paid to Fix " u Judge.

Lawyer Abraham Joseph, OF 20 Broad
way, who was charged two weeks ago hy
Lawyer George il. Epstein, of 30 BROAD
way. with having charged IA client 500
tor liking" city Court Judge, was
Nindicatei to-day by the decision OF Su.
prcmc Court Justice Andrews. He dis
missed Epstciu's motion to compel 10.
scph to pay 500 to Mrs. Goldcnson. Ep-
STEMS client.
The decision OF Justice Andrews also
vindicates Cnicf Justice Enrich. of the
city Court.
The original suit OF Mrs. Goldcnson. In
which Joseph acted as her attorney, was
against the Buwery Savings Rank to to
cover moneys on deposit, which had been
given &c her by the depositor. now dead.
Justice Ehrlich allowed the PLAINTIFF
S2,7l5.
Subsequently Mrs. Goldenson employed
Lawyer Epstein to recover 500 from
Lawyer Joseph which, she alleged. he
was holding back. This came up as &
his answer Lawyer Joseph alleged II At
from the $500 there was TO he deducted
500, which Mrs. Goldenson had under "A
written agreement. consented to pay
Joseph's brother, Herman, as a retainer
to secure his services in the original suit
against the Savings Bank:
Lawyer Epstein replied that Joseph had
represented to Mrs. Guldenson that the
$500 was to fix" the Judge.
joseph denounced this acrusa; N as a
lie. The decision of Justice Andrews is
is follows:
case is not mado out which would Justify
the Court in summHrily requiring the respondent
attorney to pay over money and Ia casting a
rtigma upon his character. All the statements
contained in the moving papers tending TO show
that the assignment OF $500 was obtained by n
false representation as TO what Was to he done
hdarits and there are several circnms,an
which tend to prove that such statements In the
moving papers are untrue.
The asst nnlent Of the $500 Ia dated March Is,
1884, which was the day on which the Notion IN
the city Court was tried and yet the petitioner
and her husband and son-in.la~ all swear that
the application for the $500 aud the execution o'
the assignment took place two or three weeks
after the trial.
AsaiL the petition claims that Herman Joseph 5
name used merely AS cover. hut II is I'M
disputed that he tried the action aud was SUE
ausntly wrote letter 10 Herman Joseph. in
disnantly asserting what she claimed to he
n Mrs. Goldenson aud her attorney believe
that she has lust claim against the attorney
the trial OF Witch the witnesses on each side
be examined and ,ross-exanllned in open
court.
1t is hardly necessary to add that ther. is not
the slightest pretense on the part OF the petit
toner or her attorney or any one else that the
$500 any part OF II was used for bribery or
was Of any bcnent to 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 intimated
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 as
| soon as he could prepare the moving
Lawyer Epstein. Mrs. Goldenson, Loui,
Goldenson and the lstter's son-in-la "
| brought before the Court. He did moi
| state just what charges would be made
| against them.