The San Francisco call., 1896-02-19
Paderewski's Secretary Sued on
an Ancient Bill for
Dry Goods.
DENIES ALL RESPONSIBILITY.
Dresses for His Wife Were Ordered
by Her Manager, Who Agreed
to Pay.

Some wonderful feats of memory were
accomplished in Justice of the Peace Ker-
rigan's court yesterday during the trial of
the suit of ]. S. Reid, assignee of Verdier
& Co., the dry-goods merchants, against
Hugo Goerlitz, the secretary of Paderewski
the great pianist.
Witnesses recalled word for word inter-
views of a business nature that took place
seventeen years ago, and even remem-
bered the hour when the conversations
took place to within fifteen minutes.
Samuel M. Shortridge appeared for the
defendant, and under his examination and
cross-examination the following story was
brought out.
In 1879 Mr.. Goerlitz and his wife were
travelling through San Francisco to Europe
from Australia, when Mrs. GoerlitZ, who
was singer of rare merit, was asked by
Frederick Lister, a theatrical manager, to
sing the leading role in "Pinafore." He
agreed to furnish all the necessary CO.'S
tunes and accessories in consideration
that for stated period he was to receive
all the receipts OF the venture.
At the conclusion of the period men,
toned Mrs. Goerlitz was to be paid per-
centage of the profits.
Mr.. Goerlitz had no interest whatever in
the production, merely acting on the part
of his wife and Mr.. Lister in arranging for
the opera.
"Pinafore" under the Lister management
was not great success and Mrs. GoerlitZ's
prospective share of the proceeds did not
materialize. Then, in spite OF the fact
that the head dressmaker of the dry goods
house had an understanding with Mrs.
GoerlitZ that Mr.. Lister was to be respon-
sible for the payment for the costumes
that were ordered, collectors were sent to
IA han tO
demand payment of the account.
In order to satisfy them and prevent
their bounding him Mr.. Goerlitz, though
asserting that ne did not owe the bill,
wrote to the firm promising to do all he
could to have the bill paid. Mr. Lister
failed, and it seems never paid the account.
The testimony of the witnesses for the
plaintiff a collector to whom the account
was assigned, bore out the contention of
Mr.. Goerlitz in many respects, but they
denied that an understanding had ever
existed that MIR. Lister had agreed to be
esponsible for the bill.
Mr. Goerlitz frankly admitted that his
recollection of events that happened sew
enteen years ago was not of the best, and
he failed to recognize a once prominent
singer who was brought in by the plaintiff
to testify to certain matters tending to
show that the defendant had been identi-
lied with the management of the theatrical
ENTERPRISE.
The other witnesses for the plaintiff,
however, showed an extraordinary fresh
ness of memory regarding the hours when
they conversed with Mr.. GoerlitZ, and also
In relation to the language used at the in
terviews, in spite of the fact that seventeen
years have interviewed since the transac-
tions took place.
AS an important witness, the head dress
maker, who, Mr.. Goerlitz says, conducted
the negotiations regarding the costumes,
was not on hand, a postponement was
requested by the counsel for defendant
until she can be brought into court. The
case will go on tomorrow at P NJ.
II never bought the goods in question"
said Mr.. Goerlitz; ''they were ordered by
Mr.. Lister, who had contracted with nv
wife, not with me, to furnish her necessary
costumes for the performance. Upon my
recent arrival in San Francisco l learned
of this old account 1 was advised that
neither in law or conscience was l liable
for this bill. l was willing to pay it, low
ever, to save my wife's name and to pre-
vent Mr.. Paderewski from annoyance. for
an attempt was made to bring HIM into
court. But somebody was hunting noto-
rlety, and hence this suit"