The San Francisco call., 1899-09-21
LAWYERS SWEAR
JUDGE COFFEY
IS EJUD|CED
Laura James Contest
in Court.
TWO AFFIDAVITS ARE FILED
ATTORNEYS HART AND FOX THE
AFFIANTS.
Both Contend That a DecisiO Ad-
TWO AFFIDAVITS ARE FILEI
ATTORNEYS HART AND FOX TIL
AFFIANTS.
Both Contend That a Decision Ad-
verse to Their Client Was
Reached Through Failure
to Credit Witnesses.

Judge Coffey has again been charged
with prejudice. Two affidavits making
this periodical charge agams, his Honor
were filed yesterday morning by w. H
H. Hart of Blythe case fame and George
w. Fox, who is associated with Hart IN
prosecuting the interests of Laura Milan
James, the alleged contract widow OF the
late DR.. c. A. James. and her infant son,
Theodore Milan James.
The charge of prejudice against Judge
Coney is the outcome of certain decisions
handed down by the court declaring the
claims of the alleged widow without foun-
dation. DR.. James died a few years ago
at his Howard street residence, leaving a
large estate. As he died intestate the
property was under course of admihtstra-
tiOn pending distribution to relatives in
Indiana. when Mrs. James came forward
and filed d petition in which she sought
distribution to her of all the estate by
virtue Of her alleged relationship.
The case was assigned to Judge Coffey
for trial, the marriage contract was pro-
duced ana evidence 10 substantiate Mrs.
James claim introduced. Considerable
evidence tending to prove that the sigma
ture on the contract was genuine was in
troduced, but Judge Coffey handed down
a decision declaring the document TO be
forgery. An appeal was taken TO the Su-
preme Court and the decision reversed,
court erred IN admitting certain evidence
and excluding other.
Now that the case is back before the
Superior Court the attorneys named OBJ
ject TO another trial before Judge Cotey,
both claiming that the court was preJu-
diced and decided the case against mis-
own opinion. In his affidavit Attorney
Fox contends that Judge Coffey compared
signatures himself and failed TO consider
the evidence given by experts who
testified that the one on the mar
rage contract
evidence OF Expert r. c. Hop
kins, whose ability has been recognized
by Circuit Judge Sawyer and other dis
tingu!shed jurists, being among that
which the court failed to consider.
Hart reached further into the case in
his affidavit than does Fox. He says
that he has known Judge Coffey for many
years and that he is positive that this
jGriSt is a man of set opinions and that
In passing upon documents similar to the
one in question his Honor frequently does,
ana especially in this case did, pass upon
the genuineness of the signature from his
own opinion ana diSCredited the opinion Of
more experienced persons. He further
sets forth that the action of Judge Coffey
in arriving at this adverse decision from
his own opoinions closed an avenue of ac-
benefit as well as the pleasure of cross
examining his Honor on the subject of
handwriting For these reasons Hart is
confident that Judge Coffey cannot retry
the case without entertaining his opinion
heretofore formed and hence a transfer
to another department is prayed for
It is understood that when the motion
for a, transfer comes up this morning At
tOrney Shadbourne, who represents the
heirs will file counter affidavit and the
then by the remarks of the court, will
make an interesting hearing.