The San Francisco call., 1897-06-23

work and management of affairs you
would be of value, but you understand
that would not put you beside those
other gentlemen on the legal questions in
volved."
That's right; that's why they were en-
ployed," ented Mr.. Hart.
But Mr.. Hart indicated that he did not
altogether agree with the estimate of the
witness in regard to his weight in the liti-
cation, for he returned with this question:
Suppose the Supreme Court in rendering
It's decision should devote more attention
TO my brief than to all the other briefs
filed in the case, what would you say TO
that?"
"Well, in that case, replied the witness
gently, II should say that you had con-
suited carefully with your associates and
that you had INDUCED in much reading"
ID. NJ. Delmas testified briefly in regard
to the value OF services such as those rem
dered by Mr.. Bergin. His estimate was
substantially similar to that of the other
expert witnesses, who thought that nr
Bergin was reasonable in his demands.
Ex-Justice Fox, formerly on the bench
OF the California Supreme Court, made
his estimate at $54 900. If the other law
yers had not been in the case he would be
disposed to place an estimate of $3.50 900
on Mr.. Bergin's work. Mr. Bergins
interest in the Blythe block ought to
weigh very little in determining the
amount of his compensation. Il might
cut Some figure, however. The questions
involved were important and difficult of
solution. The value of the property was
also worthy of being taken into consider
alton.
Ex-Judge John CARRIER, formerly Chief
Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court
was introduced as the "noblest Roman of
them all, by which title he is familiarlv
greeted by his brother lawyers. he testi-
fed that Mr.. Bergin took part in a great
deal of litigation, particularly in the
Surreme Court.
"Do you know of the fact that Mr.. Ber-
gin declined to proceed in the case unles s
some provision were made for the pay
ment of his lee p
Mr.. Garbsr said he had heard OF that a.
fact. He had never received any in
formation from the defendant Mrs
Hinckley. His firm was engaged by Mr.
Hart. He considered that Mr. Berg1n
was always in the case. Mr.. Foote and
Judge Aylett Cotton were also associated
in the litigation. They were not directed
by any attorney, not by General Hart
particularly. They consulted together
and decided what ought to be done
Attorney Aylett Cotton moved to strike
out all of Mr. CARRIERS testimony touch
ing the rumor that Mr.. Bergin had de-
clined to proceed in 1894, on the ground
that it was not shown that the defendant
Mrs. Hinckley, had any knowledge of the
subject matter.
Judge Hunt reserved his decision of this
point in order to allow opposing counsel
an opportunity to make the proper con-
nection If they could do so.
w. H. II. Hart resumed the witness
stand and denied that he had ever made
any contracts for Mrs. Hinckley before or
since her arriving at her majority. He
said that she is a woman who attends to
her own affairs and decides for herself.
Mrs. Florence Blythe Hincklev testified
that she never began to take the actual
management OF her affairs and the litiga-
ton connected Herewith until alter her
marriage. Before that she had deferred
to the opinions of her grandfather and her
grandfather's wife. After the decision of
Judge Coffey, which was in her favor. she
consulted most frequently with Jud ge
Boalt of the firm OF CARRIER, Boalt Il
Bishop.