The San Francisco call., 1897-08-14
COLONEL SMITH
SCORED COFFEY
Accused Him Of Betraying
His Clients Inter
eSts.
Charged With Wasting the
Estate of Widow Chris
tine Anderson.
Said to Have Sold Valuable Real
Estate, Negotiated Mortgage
and Pocketed the Cash.

Judge Hebbard heard argument yester-
dav in the case of Mrs. Christine Ander-
SON against DR.. F. S. Cook, Rose Dugan,
John J. Coffey, Judah Boas and the
Fl hernia Bank for the recovery of real
estate worth about $6000 and $1750 from
Mr.. Coffey, said to be on account OF
moneys advanced TO him from time to
time during the past two years.
Attorney ]. F. Smith, representing Mrs.
Anderson, drew attention to the fact that
she is a poor, unlettered woman, who has
but slight acquaintance with the Eng
lish language, and when her husband
died she applied to Mr.. Coffey as an at
torney-at-law, hoping to have her home
saved to her. In reviewing the testi-
mony Mr.. Smith quoted from the record
to prove that instead of atiem pting to
protect the widow and the orphans, whoSe
in terests II was his sworn duty to defend
he extorted from her a general power of
attorney, absolute in its terms and ire
voca bile, which no honorable attorney
would do, by which he took entire posses
sion and control OF her property, and in
stead of conserving the sacred fund that
was intended for the benefit of the widow
ana orphans, he sold The property to Rose
mitied that she never paid dollar of
consideration for the deed.
What next did this man Coffey do?"
asked Mr.. Smith. "He went to large
banking concern and tried to m Mortgage the
property for $1,000, but they knew J. J.
Coffey in that bank and he couldn't get a
cent. After that he went TO the Hibernia
Bank and succeeded in negotiating a loan
for $500 on property worth not less than
S5OOO After that he sent hanger-on to
Judah Boas and got $500 more, paying his
agent $50 commission for his services in
that transaction. But did he deliver any
of that money to his client? Not a dollar,
pot a cent. All that monev went into the
capacious pocket of John ]. Coffey. Yet
this man Coffey did not tell his client that
he had disposed of her property to an
other. and the first thing she knew of the
transaction was when some one told her
that woman named Rose Dugan, q per-
son Of whom she had never heard before
held deed 10 her little home. Then she
| became frightened and began to complain.
TO silence her outcry, Mr.. Coffey told
her tina: he would see that her property
was restored to her. and he had Rose Du-
gan, against whom l shall say nothing
except that she was Mr.. Coffey's client
he had her. say, deed the property back
TO Mrs. Anderson, and he told her that
she didn't know enough TO have 1t re-
corded, so he would attend to that Tor her,
and he put the deed in mis- pocket and
took it away with him, because she was
foolish enough to trust him again. But
did he have that deed recorded? Not
much. He did nothing OF the kind. That
was not in accord with the John J. Coffey
style of doing business. He put that deed
in his pocket, where ne had put the poor
woman's money, and that was the last of
the M after so far as he was concerned.
Rafn bo a dae6 cl
be also induced her to sign paper re-
leasing him iroEl all responsibility. OF
course she signed that; sne was willing to
sign anything just SO she might get back
her little home.
This man John J. Coffey imagined
that he was hedging himself about with
protection by getting all these papers, but
he will be disappointed. The chancellor
sitting in court of equity will see that
no such man shall reap advantage from
his own foul deed.
But the money secured from the bank
and from the money lender was not all
that John j. Coffey got from his unfor
tunate client. Under the pretense OF pay
ing pressing claims against the estate of
her husband he wrung from her scanty
hoard $3.50 in addition, and this also went
into the capacious pocket OF John J.
Coffey. You will see by this that he got
$3.50 from the estate that he had sworn
10 protect"
Here Mr.. Coffey interrupted with the
assertion that he had laid out $1,000 for
The estate but Mr.. Smith disputed him,
and cited the record to show that only
$400 in claims had been presented against
the estate from start to finish. He said
that Mr.. Coffey had betrayed every inter-
est OF his client, and was recreant to his
sworn duty as an attorney -at-law, one of
the most sacred OF all the Offices that may
be held by men in our civilization. Yet
Mr.. Coffey now sets up claim for serv.
ices as coun selor- at-law, which Mr.. Smith
regarded as lreposterous. He had delib-
erately schemed to loot this estate and
now asks tor part of the funds that have
been saved from his rapacious grasp.
Mr.. Coffey replied briefly. He said that
Mr.. Smiths remarks were not based on
the testimony, but that they were merely
the opinions OF the speaker. He protested
that he had done all he could for his
client, and thought ne was entitled to be
paid for his services.
The court announced that the motion
to nonsuit would be gran ted as to the
bank and Mr. Boas He also found that
DR.. Cook had not been guilty of any wrong
while acting as administrator of the es-
tate.
The result will be that Mrs. Anderson
will have to pay the two mortgages
amounting to $1,000, aad will also lose the
$3.50 which she advan ced to Mr.. Coffey
The court is yet TO decide whether she is
legally entitled to regain possession of her
real estate. If the truth OF her charges
against defendants Coffey and Dugan are
established to the satisfaction OF the Judge
the deed will be set aside and she will
save fraction of the estate that was left
har bv hor husband