The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-05
FOR THOUSANDS
AS Attorney, "Nobby" Clarke
Would Fare Exceed
ingIy Well.
A Prominent Cigar Manufacturer
Tells an Interesting
Story.

The attempted South San Francisco and
San Mateo County land grab published
exclusively in the CALL of Sunday and
of Monday has attracted widespread at
tention among real-estate men, property
owners and the legal fraternity. They all
concur in the opinion that the scheme, if
such it can be termed, is almost without a
parallel in the history of the State.
The magnificent addacity and matchless
nerve of the man who originated the
idea commands the admiration if not the
respect of those familiar with the case,
"Nobby'' Clarke seems to be the central
figure in the case so far as profits GO as he
was to get not only three-fourths of what
might be recovered, but also handsome
weekly allowance from each applicant. 1t
was stated at first that Clarke was to re-
ceive 10 cents an acre per month as sort
of retainer fee, but that is now found to
be incorrect, If the story told by NJ. C..
Dunn, a cigar manufacturer on Market
street, is to be relied upon. Mr.. Dunn had
novel experience with Alfred ''Nobby'
Clarke. All that prevented it from be-
coming financially disastrous was the with
drawal of his application for $50 acres of
land contained in section q, commonly
known as South San Francisco.
"a friend of mine told me-" said
Mr. Dunn yesterday, "of a lot of land
get merely for the asking, and di-
rected me TO Mr.. Clarke When I called
on Clarke he told me that he would get the
land for me, if 1 would give him IS per
cent of it, or rather 70 per cent of the
lands value. This I agreed to do. The
papers were properly filled out and signed
after which Mr.. Clarke handed me neatly
folded up, typewriter sheet, with enough
space at the bottom for my name, request
ing me to sign it. Thinking it only a mem
orandum of some kind, thoughtlessly did
SO.
1.-THE next day remembered how quickly
he.had slipped the last paper into his desk,
and it occurred to me that had not even
read it. / went to Clarke's Office and de-
manded to see the paper / had so thought
lessly signed, and without the slightest
hesitation he handed it to me. What I
saw in that paper literally took my breath
away. / had pledged myself to pay him no
less than 10 cents an acre per year for the
first year, 20 cents for the second year and
90 cents an acre for the third year and
every year thereafter until the case was
settled. Of course, dropped to the scheme
at once and 'also out of it. Just think of
It, In three years / would spend over
$4,000 in fees alone. don't blame Clarke
for trying to get all he can, but l do CEN
sure mySeu LOT ever signing paper the
contents of which | had not read.
'.Of course l scratched my name off at
once, and also made him give me a paper
to the effect that had no connection with
any land for which he is attorney, nor OBJ
ligated in any way to his office"
The experience of Mr.. Dunn is but that
of every other man who has filed an appli-
cation for homestead IN South San Fran
cisco and San Mateo County. Mr.. Dunn
states that the paper at the time he signed
it contained the signatures of twenty or