The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-31

served upon NeWpurSn. In THIS MI ROD-
bins declared he retained Aitken to attend
to the case and further:
That said John r. Aiken has at all times
since he was retained herein had the entire
management and control of said action, and of
all proceedings In connection Herewith, and
has prepared all papers and directed the course
taken herein.
That at the time said action was commenced,
A. s. Newburgh was connected with
the Office of said Aitken in the capacity of
clerk, and in said capacity filed and served
papers and took such other action in connec-
ton with the business of said Aitken said
Aiken directed him to do.
That one of the causes of action set out in the
complaint herein was note given by defend
ant TO said Aitken, and by Aiken Endorsed to
affiant.
That because of the note aforesaid, said
Aiken did not desire to appear herein as an
attorney OF record, but caused all OF the papers
his said clerk, appearing thereon as atlantis
attorney.
An affidavit by John R. Aitken completed
the literature in this matter. In it Mr..
Aitken says he prepared all the papers for
the plaintiff in the Robbins case. The
name of Mr.. Newburgh. he asserts, was
employed merely because he (Aitken) did
not wish to appear as the attorney of
record. He says also that it was under
STOOD that Newburgh was to receive no fee
or compensation other than the use of his
(Aitken's) Office and its accommodations.
The time allowed for serving these pa
pers was shortened by Judge Murphy at the
request of Mr.. Aitken from FIVE days to
one day. The papers were served on New
burgh, and though they thus became
part of the record of the case, they have
not been filed in court. Becoming of
record they would have been open to ex-
animation by the other attorneys, who
would have discovered that Mr.. Aitken
had obtained the judgment which so dis
concerted their clients, by appearing by
proxy as attorney for the plaintiff whose
suit he was practically combating.
Maurice Gradwohl, whose name was
signed as the attorney of record for the de-
fendant, said that he knew absolutely
nothing about the merits of the case. He
was not even aware of its nature. He
knew that he had been authorized by
man, who was introduced to him as A.
Haskins, to sign certain answer that had
been prepared in Judge Athens Office and
that was all.
at was this way" he said. Judge
Aitken and Mr.. Newburgh came into my
office short time ago and requested me to
sign certain answer they had prepared in
a certain case. They told me this would
make me appear as attorney for the defen-
dant, Haskins.
GAS Mr.. Aitken was a neighbor and an
attorney, /, of course, wished to accommo-
date him. But l was not prepared to act
unless requested to do SO by the man him.
self.
$50 I asked Mr. Aiken if Mr.. Haskins
wished me to act as his attorney. He an
swered in the affirmative. | then told him
that if he would bring Mr.. Haskins to me
l would act as his attorney if he desired.
"Mr. Aitken at once took me to his Of
fee, few doors from mine. There l was
introduced 10 a Mr. Haskins. l asked him
if he was the defendant in the case OF Rob
bins VS.. Hasllins. He said he was. l then
read the answer to him asking him if he |
understood it's meaning and the effect it |
would have on the case. He said that he |
sign it as his attorney. He again answered |
in the affirmative and l at once affixed my |
signature.
THAT is the last l have heard of the |
case, ;" Mr.. Gradwohl said in concluding. |
81 appeared in it to oblige Mr.. Aitken. OF |
course, l received no fee and do not antici-
pate receiving one as l acted to oblige Mr.. !
Aitken. Had Mr.. Haskins come to me |
and requested me to serve l would natur- |
ally have expected fee."
Mr.. Aitken has an explanation of the
matter. He admits that he was the plain
tiff. He also admits that he was the attor-
ney for the plaintiff and for the defendant.
But still he claims that his action was per-
fectly justitable.
"You see, Haskins had some $4,000 COM !
ing to him from the street railway COM |
pany on contract," explained Mr.. Aitken. |
He had received about $1,000, and some |
$4,000 was due. But men who had fur
nished materials had received orders from |
Haskins for sums amounting to 500 more |
than was due him from the railroad COM
pany. AS consequence we, who had old |
claims against Haskins, saw that unless
we acted quickly we could get nothing.
~ am not Haskins' attorney. | have |
Id - l~,,% II
not his attorney. He owed me $500, though, |
on a note drawn January 3, 1895. He
owed w. G. Mason $500 80 for groceries,
John Kelso $3.50 81 for teaming, and the
Alameda Building and Loan Association
$500 for rent. These claims were brought
to me, and / had them assigned to Mr..
Robbins
Il drew the complaint in the case, and
Newburgh signed it. l also drew the
papers and put Newburgh's name to
them"
"But were you not acting for Mr.. Has
kins at the same timer" was asked.
''Well, no." answered Mr.. Aitken. 81
could not say l was acting for him. Still
| did not want to appear for the plaintiff,
because l was connected with some OF Mr..
Haskins' legal affairs"
Mr.. Athens attention was called to the
statement of Mr.. Gradwohl, and he ad-
mitted that the statement was correct and
SalQ JnaC the complaint winch MT. GraQ-
wohl had signed had been drawn up in his
office either by Mr.. Newburgh or himself,
he did not know which.
Mr.. Newburgh is emphatic in saying
that he had not drawn up the papers.
This leaves Mr.. Aitken involved in the
peculiar position of having prepared the
defense in which, though technically OPP
posing the plaintiff he yet gave Judgment
to a plaintiff who represented himself,
John r. Aiken, the practical attorney for
the defendant. Here is a puzzle even for
Philadelphia lawyer.
As the courtroom activities of Mr.. Ait
ken would leave the material men only
fifty cents on the dollar for the goods fur
nished by them, they at once charged that
Mr.. Aitken was guilty of collision.
Mr.. Aitken has announced that he does
not intend 10 profit by the advantage he
has obtained. Although the judgment
secured in Judge Murphy's court on its
face allows him dollar for dollar, yet he
saws he only desires to divide pro rata with
the other creditors. In this way he mag
unanimously gives up all the advantages
ostensibly secured to himself by obtaining \
judgment.
Theodore Savage, attorney for G. W.
Fox, said: Mr.. Aitken came to me about
ten DAVIS 400 and told me he was willing IN