The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-31
A|TKEN AS A POOH BAH,
His Connection With an In
Volved Lawsuit Causes
Comment.
INTERESTED ON BOTH SIDES.
A Judgment Said to Have Been OBJ
tanned Before Judge Murphy
by Collision.

A peculiar legal transaction has been
brought to light in the case of F. 90. Rob-
bins against A. Haskins. 1t shows John
R. Aitken, ex-Superior Court Judge of San
Diego County, acting as plaintiff, as at
torney for the defendant, and also as at
torney for the plaintiff in the same case.
This peculiar multiplication of functions
he obtained through the assistance of
friends. and an investigation will be asked
for by Attorney Savage, who will call the
matter to Judge Murphy's attention.
Mr.. Haskins took the contract of putting
down a bituminous pavement between the
srreetcar tracks on Twenty-second street.
The work amounted to $4013 80. This sum
was to be due sixty days afterthe completion
and acceptance of the work. The company
paid Mr.. Haskins at different times sums
aggregating $3.50 as the work progressed.
The company also furnished him $35 worth
of material. This left $2S2S 80 due on the
work.
Haskins bought his materials from the
Standard Asphalt Company and the
Wood, Slade & Thayer Lumber Company.
At the completion of the work he gave the
lumber company an order on the Market
street Railway Company for S1512 81.
This was on January ,. To the Standard
Asphalt Company he gave two orders
aggregating $743 81, one of which was
dated December II, 1894, and the other
February ID, 1895. On February 25, 1895,
he gave TO c. w. Fox, money-lender
an order for 500 on the sum coming to
him.
This made the total of orders amount to
$2956 "a. There was only $2826 80 with
which to pay them, but as the discrepancy
was so slight the creditor firms felt no IN
eaSiness about coming TO an understand
ing in the matter. They felt so secure
that their claims would be paid that they
allowed the statutory thirty days within
which they could file liens to pass. Then
they were surprised to hear that judg
ment had been given in favor OF +. 0.
Robbins against the S2S28 80 for $1139 %.
What was more Robbins had levied an
attachment on what was due Haskins, and
the only thing that prevented his getting
the money was the fact that the railway
company declared it was not due because
sixty days had not elapsed since the COM
pletion of the contract.
As this new turn of affairs would leave
the supply men only 1859 OF with which
to satisfy their claims for $2956 "a, they be-
gan to look out for their interests. They
did not quite understand how the middle
came about. But soon A. P. Newburgh,
who had his headquarters in the Office of
John R. Aitken, quarreled with his SUI
perlor over the way that gentleman had
conducted Mr.. Newburgh's case against
Captain Douglass. He has made the par
ticulars of the paving contract litigation
known, and as a result the firms supplying
the material employed in Mr.. Haskins'
job may receive a sum approximating the
amount due them.
Mr.. Newburgh was seen yesterday and
explained his connection with the Has
kins affair. He began by explaining that
he had been allowed to make his head
quarters at the rooms of Judge Aitken and
that he had at times been able to be useful
TO that gentleman.
"Mr. Aitken is the attorney for Mr.. Has
kins,' he said. ''He now represents him
in two cases, prosecuting a suit for $50, 900
damages for libel against q man named
Jordan, and defending a case in which Mr..
Haskins was sued for $500 by man named
Crossman.
"Mr. Aitken came to me one day and
said he had note for $500 against Has
kins, which he wanted to collect. He also
had four other claims against Haskins.
These, he told me, he would put in one
claim and have the whole transferred to f.
O. Robbins. He explained that as he was
attorney for Haskins he had to do this as
he could not very well act as plaintiff
against his own client, neither could he,
with very good grace, represent that client
In a suit which he was compelled to bring
against said client, so he got me to take
charge of the case.
1--WE drew up the complaint jointly. He
did part OF the work and L did part. If
no answer had been fled TO the complaint
inside OF ten days the case would have
gone by default. But if we let it go that
long the other creditors might have got
wind OF the case and attached too, SO l
asked him why, since he represented Has
kins, he did not enter confession of
AZ Cn
"He told me this would look too rocky.
But, Just the same, he prepared an answer
within three days after the filing of the
complaint, in which all the allegations of
the com plant were admitted.
Gas l was ostensibly prosecuting the
case he could not very well appear as the
defendant. So we went to Maurice Grad
wohl, who has an Office in the same build
ing, and Mr.. Aitken asked him to sign the
answer, thus getting Gradwohl to appear
for Haskins.
"Mr. Gradwohl, of course, knew nothing
about the intricacies of the case. Still he
was neighbor and he consented to do as
he was requested by Aitken only on condi-
ton that he should be authorized by Has
kins to sign the papers.
Upon this Judge Aitken introduced
Mr. Gradwohl to Mr.. Haskins Mr.. Has
kins told Mr.. Gradwohl that he understood
the significance of the answer and wished
it filed. Mr.. Gradwohl then signed it as
attorney.
"But he would not 60 to court, though.
We had to file the answer ourselves, and
upon the strength of it we received judg-
ment and afterwards levied an execution
upon the money due Haskins from the
Market-street Railway Company.
when my case against Captain Doug
lass came up before Judge Croezinger, Mr..
Aitken, acting as my attorney. conducted
circus lemonade prosecution. By this
] mean to indicate in figurative language
the intense degree of its weakness.
ut looked to me as if Aitken had been
'caved down the bank by the police infiu-
ence. Smarting under my sense of in jury,
/ quarreled with Mr.. Aitken and left that
gentleman's Office.
Before going, Mr.. Aitken demanded
that l sign an order of substitution of at
torneys in the case OF F. o. Robbins VS.. A.
Haskins This 1 refused to do until / had
been paid for my services in the case. Mr..
Aiken then served upon me papers de-
manding that retire from the case and
allow John r. Aitken TO act as substitute"
notice of intention to make such mo-
ton before Judge Murphy, by whom the
case was tried, was signed by Mr.. Robbins.
1t was served on Newburgh, and stated