The San Francisco call., 1898-07-28

at this point. It was drawn by MT. Hawkins himself, he acting as his own attorney and is very circumstantial and frank. It recites the agreement and states that the ten dollars per week were paid during the lifetime of Annie Donahue and that 1t ceased after Monday December [, 1896, Annie Donahue having died on December F, between two pay days.
 Upon the refusal by the executors, Hawkins filed suit for $9725 alleged to be due him from the estate of Annie Donahue. According to the affidavit, when the suit came to trial, John T. Doyle went on the stand and swore that the payment of ten dollars week to Hawkins was mere gratuity dur ing the lifetime of Annie Donahue, and not intended as a settlement. The plaintiff was nonsuted.
 Hawkins, in the affidavit, alleges that Doyle, In his letters to him on the subject had never mentioned anything to the effect that the payments were l intended as a gratuity, and he asserts that he would have indignantly spurn- ed and refused any gratuity, and that he was defrauded of his rights in the premises by "treachery and conspir- acy" and that Doyle well knew what the arrangement was, for it originated in the month of March, 1S79 nineteen years and three months before In Doyle's office, in a suit instigated and suggested by Doyle himself, to set aside on the ground of fraud a deed of trust that the affiant had made to his cousin Peter Donahue The affidavit goes on to say further:
 That this affiant verify believes and | therefore deposes and says that said suit and other similar suits against this af- liant were conceived in the mind of said Doyle and urged by him upon his clients the bank of Donohoe, Kelly & Co., on ac- count of said Doyle's personal and malig- nant hatred of and hostility to said Peter Donahue: that said deep-seated rancor hate and hostility upon the part of said Doyle was occasioned by the action of said Peter Donahue in the year 1865, sum marily dismissing said John T. Doyle, who had been employed as hIs, said Pe- ters, attorney; that this aff1ant further deposes and says that the said Peter Donahue made known to this affiant and others the reason for his abrupt and sum mary dismissal of said Doyle, namely, Donahue from the State in said year 1865, said Donahue being compelled to go to New York in that year, left with said John T. Doyle his full power of attorney fo manage and transact hls business in this State during his absence; that said Donahue was absent six months; upon looking into his affairs after his return he dismissed said Doyle in the summary manner aforesaid; that Peter was always outspoken in giving his unsatisfactory business experience with said Doyle and his management of his affairs; that until the date of Peters deatn In 1885, he DoyIe) had never crossed the threshhold of Peter Donahue's home nor had he ever entered his (said Peter's) office, hence the hostility Doyle. manifested ii1A in said suits, particularly the suit ttn set aside the deed of trust of this af- liant to said Peter in March, 1879, four teen years later.
 The affidavit proceeds to haul Doyle over the coals for raising objections to a codicil in the will of Mary Ann Dona- hue because of an informality, and re- cites that Doyle's insistence upon legal forms harassed the beneficiaries under the codicil. The affidavit goes on:
 This afIiant further deposes and says