The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-04
DAVID SAMUELS IS SUED,
Mary E. Pleasant Demands
Over Thirty-TWo Thou
sand Dollars.
The Lace Merchant Repudiates the
Claim and Says That She
Owes Him.

A suit was filed yesterday in the Supe-
rior Court by Mary E. Pleasant to recover
S32, 1854 06 from David Samuels, the we'll
known dry goods and lace merchant.
"Mammie" Pleasant, as she is commonly
called, is well known to the old time stock
gamblers on Pine street. In later years
she became very prominent in the Hill
Sharon divorce case, being Sarah Althea
Hills stanchest friend. Her suit against
the lace merchant is somewhat peculiar.
She asserts that at various times between
1876 and 1885 she gave him her notes for
sums ranging between $500 and $500, for
which she received no consideration These
notes she iquidated when they became
due the same as though they were genuine.
Mrs. Pleasant was out of town last even
ing ard so the details of those peculiar
transactions were not obtainable
Mr.. Samuels' ver,ion Of his business
dealings with the aged colored woman is
decidedly interesting, as it goes back to
times when money was more plentiful
than it is now. In the first place he denied
that he owed Mrs. Pleasant one cent. He
claims that the obligation is on the other
side and that she owes him between $4,000
and $1,000 for goods purchased at his store
many years ago. He said: "This business
dates back fifteen or twenty years and is
decidedly tangled up with the affairs of
the late capitalist, Thomas Bell, who died
about two years ago.
Mrs. Pleasant has lived with the Bell
family many years, and seemed to be one
of its most active members. In fact, her
word in the house seemed to be the law.
Mrs. Bell purchased from me many thou
sand dollars worth of goods. Sometimes
she got them from me in person and some
times through Mrs. Pleasant l also sold
10 - NJ
her total amount of purchases ran up dur
ing the many years she patronized my
store to about $4,000. She gave me her
notes for various sums from $500 to $500.
and from time to time she would pay up
the whole or part of the various amounts.
About six years ago she stopped paying.
II often asked her for the balance, but
she would put me off with some excuse.
"After the death of Thomas Bell began
an action against the estate for SIG, 600 for
goods sold to his wife, and as the estate is
not yet settled, have not been paid At
last called upon Mrs. Pleasant to pay me
the balance of what she owes me. She
snapped her finger in my face and told
me she would not pay cent.
Instead of paying you, I'll make YOU
pay me- she said to me. Those goods |
bought were for Mrs. Bell, but the money
L paid you was my own money. Not a
cent of it was Thomas Bells. It was
mine, and advanced to you at your re-
quest, and I'll show in court that 1 never
received one cents worth of benefit from
the notes or the money 1 gave you.'"
Mr.. Samuels stated that in order to show
Mrs. Pleasant that she was entirely in the
wrong and that she had no chance in court
with euch a claim, he allowed her to send
expert accountants to his store and exam
inc their accounts for twenty years past.
and that in every instance the experts
were satisfied that the accounts were as he
had stated, and that Mrs. Pleasant still
owed him between $1,000 and $1,000. To put
it mildly, Mr.. Samuels questions the
motives that prompt Mrs. Pleasant to
bring the action. When the case comes
up in court there is no doubt that there
viii be some interesting developments in
the matter.