The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-11
ACCUSES HER ATTORNEY.
Nine. Poupion Repeats an Unsuc'
ceSSful Charge Made Ten
Years Ago.
Lawyer Bull Denounces the Action as
Baseless Attempt to Injure
Him Publicly.

y
newing charges against Attorney Franklin
P. Bull that she made nearly ten years ago,
and from which he was completely ex-
onerated at the time by the same associa-
ton.
What is peculiar about the matter is the
evident intent to give the accusation
wide publicity. Copies of the charges
were furnished all the papers at the time
the originals were filed. Inquiry and COM
parison show that the charges are a rehash
of what was long ago proved to be fruit
less and unfounded attempt to impeach
her former counsel.
The complaint accuses Mr.. Bull of en-
bezzlement, and is brought under sec
ton of the Penal Code in which it is pro-
vided that any attorney using deceit or
collision, with intent to deceive the court
or others, is guilty of misdemeanor.
In it Josephine A. c. Poupion AYERS that
in 1881, while she was in France, she left
her property at 1925 Mission street in
charge of man, to whom she gave the
power of attorney, but that be lost the
papers, and when she returned year later
she found two men in possession under a
purported lease from her husband. In the
having the occupants legally elected, and
secured Judgment for $500 as back rent.
Meanwhile, she asserts, q Judgment had
been rendered against her Oh fraudulent
promissory note for $4,000, payment on
which, it had been agreed, should be de-
ferred ten years. The basis of this pay
ment, il is claimed, was the lost power of
attorney, which had fallen into the hands
of the opposing counsel.
elm 1885, the following year, having be.
ONE disguised, she says, with her attor
neys, she employed Franklin P. Bull to
represent her i'll an appeal taken by the
man who had held possession of her house.
Mr.. Bull, so she claims was to be compen
stated for his services only in the event of
his succeeding in having the $1,000 fraudu-
lent judgmen: set aside and in collecting
the $500 back-rent claim against the
appellant. She credits Mr.. Bull with
having won the appeal, but accuses him
of baving collected $1100 from surety on
the appeal bond and applied it to the
amount due him as fees.
The result is that Nine. Poupion de-
clares that Mr.. Bull never made any effort
TO set aside the $4,000 judgment, and in
consequence she had to pay $1,000 to keep
from losing her property, besides being
out of pocket the money collected on her
account and appropriated as pay by him
without her consent.
She claims that Mr.. Bull was of no as
sistance to her. as she finally gained pos
session of her property by force after
waiting without satisfaction FOR the law to
assist her, and that Mr.. Bull neglected so
long to attend TO the fraudulent judgment
that the statute of limitations has Iapsed
and cut her off from relief.
Franklin P. Bull when seen about the |
matter yesterday said:
st is practically the same complaint |
they brought about ten years ago. and |
which the Bar Association passed upon |
and exonerated me completely.
at is false that ever agreed to attempt |
to have that Judgment against her for |
$1,000 set aside, for | was not employed by |
her until year after it was rendered, and |
the time for taking an appeal had already |
lapsed. 1t was Judgment rendered by |
consent of both parties and it could not |
be set aside.
''She and her friend Lefeyre were ar
rested five times for going out to her house |
and threatening with pistols to clean the |
people out. | represented her in those |
five criminal cases and won them all for
her.
According to her agreement the rents
were to be devoted to the payment of the
amount of the judgment, and it was re-
duced to about $500 when / turned over
the rest in Judge Hunts court and took
the clerk s receipt, which | now have.
Here is the written agreement that was
made with me when l became her attor-
ney:
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL, Feb. 90, 1886.
We or either of US do hereby agree and IN
dertake TO pay to Franklin 2. Bull any and all
sums of money advanced by said Bull for our
or either of our benefit in any litigation which
he may have been engaged for us or either of
us; said amounts to bear interest at the rate of
10 per cent per annum from date of advance
ment until paid, and said payments to become
due on the rendering of decision or dismissal
= ~, nf IN NtI1n OF al No
472 by the Supreme Court OF the State of Cali
fOrnia. THEODORE LEFEvRE.
CLARA PoUPIoN.
''That was the ejectment case that won
on appeal. But when it was settled she
had nothing to pay me, and | sued upon
the bond for about $1100, which / agreed
to take for my fees and the amounts due
me, although my claim amounted to much
more than that. They were in court at
the time Judgment was rendered and when
l got the $1100.
''This tack is simply taken to injure me
before the public, as is evident from the
circulation of duplicate copies of the
charge.
Il do not think that the committee of
the Bar Association will ever take it up |
The records themselves are the best proofs |
that the charge is an absolute falsehood."
George F. Gordon of the law firm of Cor |
don & Young, formerly chairman of the |
committee of complaint of the Bar Asso- !
citation, said yesterday that he had looked |
into the charge some time ago and had |
found nothing in it.
Arthur Rodgers, the present chairman
of the committee, was not in his office, but |
his associate said that the complaint was a J
revival of old charges investigated by the |
committee and found without any grounds |
whatever.
The Wolf Eviction.
john T. Fulton, who was referred to last |
Sunday as having evicted Nicholas and |
Jane Wolf for non-payment of rent, writes
stating that he has not owned the prop !
erty in question for some time. He adds |
that the present owner, John Walker, was