The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-01
He MAY Be D|SBARRED,
The Attention of the Bar ASSO-
citation Called to John
r. Aiken.
AN EXPLANATION IN ORDER.
Judge Murphy Requests the At
torney to Repudiate the Charges
Against Him.

Inc charges against John r. Aitken have
sslrred up more than ordinary interest.
among the men who began quietly in
Vestlgatlng was Attorney NJ. M. Foote, one
OF whose lads is the publication of the bar.
AS result of his investigations Mr..
foote decided that the matter should be
brought before the Bar Association and re-
ported thence TO the Supreme Court. He
therefore wrote that body the following
letter:
~. SAN FRANCISCO Cal, May 81, 1895.
:, 10 Hon. EdDard B. TdyLor President of the
pr ASSOCIATION Of San Francisco: As member
n tbe our honorable profession and fully realizing
| mat none should be permitted to practice or
DeIong to our honorable profession who are
morally united therefor, and realizing that it
a a. matter OF great concern to the public and
| otStHe IL my DUTY as an attorney TO call your
| aItenlon to the wiIlful misconduct and I'M
| Professional acts of John r. Aitken in that
| I Gasti case entitled f. o. Robb ms vs. A.
| Hashlhs, NO. 90, 1883, pending in our Superior
Sourt, l charge said John r. Aitken OF 4O2
| montgomery street with having been guilty OF
| IN conduct an attorney and
| 0oGuiuselor-at-laW IN said case and with having
EioiateQ section 160, subdivision l of the Penal
ooIe Oh TINS State, which reads as follows:
EVery attorney who, whether as attorney
u rs counselor, either-frst, is guilty of any
ueGell or coiius1on, or consents to any deceit or
coilus1on with intent to deceive the court or
| any party, Is guilty of a misdemeanor."
| ana further charge John r. Aitken with
| having violated section 2S7, subdivision 2 Of
| the Code OF Civil Procedure of this State
| %nl"h section relates to removal and suspen-
| SION OF attorneys for unprofessional conduct
| ana, as Will appear by the following clipping
| SSettlng 1or IN the facts and taken from the San
fF aa CALL OF May 81, 1895, 1 charge said
John T. Altken with having violated his duty
as an attorney" and further call your atten-
u 1ion to the case Of the People VS.. Spencer, 81
| Gal: I5O, wherein our Supreme Court decided
by appearing both for plaintiff and defend
aut IN inc same action, he was guilty of "a vio-
ID tloh OF ms duty as an attorney for which it
| Is our DUTY 10 remove or suspend him. re. C. P.
| sec. Esd Neither his ignorance of the laws
nor the crudity OF his notions of professional
etnlcs' can excuse an offense against profess
s!onal proprlety by one whose duty it is to as
slst IN The administration of justice"
deem it for the public welfare that such
persons should be exposed and not permitted to
prey upon the public by resorting to such prac-
| tlces as are charged by me against said John R.
Aiken, and as will appear by the annexed
clipping from the San Francisco CALL, and
respectfully ask your honorable body to in
vestlgate this matter fully, and that you take
such action in the premises as are lust and
proper and that will uphold and maintain the
olghlty and honor OF our profession. Respect
fully yours, NJ. NJ. FooTE.
Judge Murphy was seen by Mr.. Aitken
yesterday morning in regard to the matter
The Judge, however, would hear nothing,
and advised Mr.. Aitken that what passed
| between them should be a matter of record.
He came to me in my chambers, !"
Judge Murphy said. 81 told him that if
the story printed in the CALL was not true
| he owed it to himself and to the bar to re-
pudiate the statements made therein. I
also told him that as l would have to act
| in the matter | did not want to hear from
| him then, but that he should make a state
ment in open court in the form of affi-
davits.'
Judge Murphy refused to speak on the
case in particular. He said, though, that
it was not considered good practice for an
attorney to represent both sides in case
Such action would, he thought, in general
be conclusive evidence of fraud, and iudg-
ment obtained by such means would most
assuredly be set aside.
81 will have to wait for the matter to be
brought to my attention formally before |
can take cognizance of it," he said. eff
such a story about an attorney were true,
the matter should be carried at once before
the Supreme Court and disbarment pro-
ceedings begun. Matters of that sort are
generally taken in hand by the Bar Asso-
citation. / think that it would be sufficient
to forward the article printed in the CALL,
with the statement that those facts could
be verified. to have thorough investiga-
ton instituted"
Theodore Savage, the attorney for G. W.
Fox, to whom Contractor Haskins assigned
$500 of his clsim against the Market-street
Railway Company, said yesterday that he
would not take any steps toward asking
for Mr.. Athens disbarment now. Such
action would require him to go to consider
able trouble and would not benefit him in
the least.
"You see," he explained, 1--WE do not ap-
pear in this case yet. It is now merely an
attempt of Mr.. Aitken to establish his
claim. As soon as he does that, and Judge
Murphy gives an order for the Market
street Railway Company to pay over the
money, then we will step in and rake Mr..
Aitken all along the line.
'You may be sure we will not neglect
the manner in which his judgment was
obtained by Mr.. Aitken. My main point,
however, will be that his Judgment is good
only upon moneys remaining after the as
signed claims have been satisfied. 1t is an
established fact in law that an equitable
assignee has preference over a subsequent
attaching creditor, and there is no question
as to the equity of our assignments"
The position taken by Mr.. Savage is also
that of +. B. Lake, the attorney for the
Market-street Railway Company.
81 have said that there was no money
due Mr.. Haskins," he said yesterday.
''This is so; but it is not because his work
was not accepted.
1.-THE company owes Mr.. Haskins moth
Ing ana MT. AltKen nothing, because the
amount due Mr.. Haskins was exhausted
by the assignments given by Mr.. Haskins
to the material men. Though they were
not accepted in black and white, never
theless considered them equitable assign
ments."
Mr.. Lake then said that he hardly
thought the assignees would get anything.
as Mr.. Haskins had guaranteed his pave
ment to last five years, and he understood
it was not going to last.
Mr.. Aitken declares that he has been
done gross injustice. He says that he
had no improper motives in what he did,
and that he intends making a statement.
backed up by afidavits, before Judge
Murphy on Monday that will show the
truth OF his claims.
"The whole matter rests in this" he
said. "Mr. Haskins had promised to pay
the attaching creditors out of the money
coming to him on his contract. It rained