The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1906-12-21
MARCHUs ACCUSED
OF CROSS FRAUD
Attorney Alleged to Have
Restored Fake Records to
Secure Big Fee in Case
INQUIRY is MADE

w nat IS allege0 TO nave Deen an el-
fort on the part of Attorney D. Edward
Marchus of 2036 Suffer street to de-
fraud a client and outwit the Superior
Court by securing decree on resto-
ration of records in fake suit con-
cocted for the purpose is to be investi-
gated this morning by Judge Kerrigan,
and will undoubtedly result in his dis
barment and possible imprisonment In
case the charges are proved true.
Jorgan A. Jorgensen, chief boats
wain's mate on the Pensacola, brought
the matter to the attention of Judge
Kerrigan when he appeared on Wednes-
day to inquire as to the authenticity of
a final decree Of divorce issued to him
about ten days ago on application OF
Marchus, his attorney. Jorgensen's
introductory decree was granted on
November 20 of this year, and the law
requires that a year must elapse be-
tween the granting of the interlocutory
and final DEGREES.
The matter was at once looked into,
and Marchus stated that the sending Of
the decree to Jorgensen was a mistake
due to a strange series of condolences.
He declared that the decree had been
secured in the case of another client
named J. Jorgensen, in which action the
initials of both plaintiff and defendant
were identical with those In this suit,
and that he had mixed the addresses of
his two clients and sent the wrong de-
cree to Jorgan A Jorgensen.
HAS ATTORNEYS RECEIPTS
Jorgensen again appeared in Judge
Kerrigan's court yesterday morning.
He declared that he had paid Marchus
S45 for obtaining the interlocutory de-
cree, and that shortly afterward he
received a letter from the attorney ask
ing him to call at the latter's Office.
When he had done so, he averred, Mar
chus had told him that he would secure
a final decree in his case for 500, which
proposal was accepted.
Jorgensen returned to Goat Island
and waited until November 80. He
then visited Marchus and paid him $40
on account. A few days later the final
decree in the j. Jorgensen case was
granted and Jorgensen at Goat Island
received a copy of the decree.
In substantiation of his claims. Jor-
gensen displayed two receipts signed by
Marchus. The first of these, dated No
vember 20, showed that SIS had been
received on account for services rem
dered and that there was a balance due
of $40. The second was dated Deem
Der l, the day after that on which Jor-
gensen claims to have paid Marchus the
$40. and was for $40 on account with a
balance due of $50.
Jorgensen also stated that he was
told by Marchus not to say anything
about the final decree matter nor the
500 agreement to any one Judge Ker-
rigan has cited both Jorgensen and
Marchus to appear In his court at
1890 o'clock this morning, and the mat
ter will be sifted to the bottom.
SAYS 1T WAS MISTAKE
Marchus denied yesterday that he
had ever sent for Jorgensen to come
to his office or promised him to secure
a final decree. Instead, he stuck to
his original statement that he had sent
the copy of the decree to Jorgensen by
mistake, having mixed the addresses of
his two clients. He admitted that the
fee charged for the introductory de-
cree was s45, and said that two pay
ments were made. and that he gave two
receipts to Jorgensen. He was un-
able, however. to remember the dates
or the amounts of these receipts, and
said that he had no record of them in
his Office. He was positive in his state
ment. though, that no 500 agreement
had ever been made, and said that If
such receipt existed it was an out
right forgery so far as his signature
was concerned.
Marchus explained that he received
a letter from ]. Jorgensen, the alleged
original client, asking him to have the
records in this case restored and the
final decree granted. The attorney
said that he restored the records
through his memory of the original
case Marchus was unable to produce
the letter. however, and although he
thought that ]. Jorgensen was now in
the neighborhood of st. Paul, Mimi,
he was not sure of this fact He could
not remember the grounds for that
divorce