The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-20

employment in the present instance.
When questioned concerning his connec-
ton with the transaction yesterday, Judge
Aitken said:
Eyes, l was consulted by Mrs. Blythe
in respect to the settlement and I pre-
sumo all the advice that she has received
was from me. l was not. however, asked
to pass upon her standing in the Blythe
case. but was required only to give an
opinion on certain deeds and papers
as to their being in proper legal form
and also as to whether not by executing
them Mrs. Blythe would render herself
liable to criminal prosecution because of
her former assignment of interest to an
other person.
The matter was brought to my attention
about two weeks ago by gentleman
whose name / shall not mention. He
asked if l would object to rendering an
opinion for Mrs. Blythe on certain papers
relating to the Blythe estate. l was at
first disinclined to act in the matter be-
cause l knew that other attorneys had
been representing her, but upon learning
Just what service was desired-that it did
not involve an opinion upon her standing
in the Blythe case or any interference
with that case-I consented.
"The first paper submitted purported to
NC plOpOSlblOll HOIl MIS- Oily Tile To MIS-.
Hinekley that the former should assign all
her remaining interest This proved to be
in proper form and it was signed by Mrs
Blythe. Some days later other papers
were submitted. They were nineteen in
number and were quitclaim and grant
deeds from Mrs. Blythe to Florence Blythe
Hinckley, covering all the Blythe property
in this State, in Oregon, III Arizona and in
Mexico. Eight of the documents related
to property in Mexico. They were drawn
up in Spanish and were in the form of
original conveyanees.
The others related to property in the
United States and they, with one excep-
cion, were ,quitclaim deeds. The excep-
ton referred to a mine in Arizona belong
ing to the estate, and that was a grant
deed.
Another paper executed by Mrs. Blythe
was an irrevocable power of attorney to
dismiss all suits relating to the Blythe eS-
tate that may be brought hereafter in her
,iame, whether they be brought in the
United States or in the republic of Mexico.
TO whom was intrusted that power? To
Judge Catton-Aylett r. Cation, believe
his name is
"The consideration? Well I do not
know that 1 ought to divulge that, though
of course Mrs. Blythe has nothing to con-
ceal in the matter. 1t was, however, a
lump sum and not an allowance. Large
y
prlsed to know how small it was. 1t was
considerably less than $1,000"
1t was learned later that the sum was
between $500 and 5000; also. that Detective
Lucas was the mysterious visitor who first
employed Mr.. Aitken.
Mrs. Blythe reason for executing the pa
pers," continued Mr.. Aitken, twas desire
to avoid more worry and litigation. From
my former acquaintance with her l can
say that when she came to my office to
sign those papers-and she was there three
or four times-she was very sick woman.
"A published statement made last Sun
day was false. Mrs. Blythe has not aban-
doned the name of Blythe nor was any
agreement that she should or would do SO
included in those documents.
"In no way and at no time has she re-
coded one iota from the stand taken by her
in the beginning, that she was the wife of
Thomas II. Blythe. The published state
ment to the contrary has annoyed her, and
| know she wishes it corrected"
Mrs, Blythe has been staying with lady
friend in the Western Addition. She feels
that she has a grievance against Attorney
Highton, because, as she says, she was to
receive from him an allowance Approximate
ing $50 a month during the proceedings,
and this has not been paid since last De-
cember.
Detective Lucas, she says, has accom-
plished his work for her and is no longer
in her employ. Mr.. Sinclair has talked a
great deal about the case, and the lady ex-
presses her opinion that he would have
served her interests much better if he had
held his tongue.
Mr.. Highton, when told last night of the
character of the documents executed by
Mrs. Blythe, did not seem much alarmed,
and expressed the opinion that they must
hold only subject to the former transfer.
A few days ago Mr.. Highton, in speaking
IF ho al int in 4r5IitU and IFS
charges of fraud and conspiracy, said that
attorneys John CARRIER, John Boalt and w.
w. Foote would not be made defendants
in it, for he had known them for years and
was convinced of their integrity.