Los Angeles herald., 1906-08-02
CLIENT APPEARS
AGAINST LAWYER
COOK AND DANFORD FALL OUT
OVER LITIGATION
Accused Man Produces Clerk Who
Says He Saw Accuser Sign
Forged Paper-Decislon
Today

Decision in the case Of Attorney w.
j. Danford, charged with forgery, will
be handed down this morning by Jus
tice Downey of the township court,
before whom the accused underwent
preliminary examination yesterday.
The charge against Danford is one
of long standing, and yesterday morn
ing, when 1t was announced that II. 7.
Cook, the prosecuting witness, had not
arrived from San Francisco, 1t was
thought that the Danford case would
fail because of lack of evidence.
But Cook arrived during the day and
yesterday afternoon, when the case
was called for a second hearing, Dep
uty District Attorney McComas and
Cook appeared in court and announced
that they were ready to proceed with
the preliminary examination.
The Charge
Danford is charged with having
forged the name of II. T. Cook to an
order of power of attorney" in which
Danford was empowered to sell GER
tain city lot for Cook.
The sale of the lot, however, never
occurrerd and the order would prob
ably never have been dragged into
court had not Danford and his client
become estranged over the settlement
of a bill.
Cook had applied to Danford to act
as his attorney in a divorce case. Dam
ford was given $500 by Cook, and Cook
now alleges that he gave the money
to Danford to hold in trust for him
until after the divorce case was over.
Danford deposited the money in his
own name, according to the evidence
in the case, and thereafter the divorce
proceedings were begun and the petit
ton filed in the superior court.
Some time later Cook and his wife
made up their differences, and Cook
called on Danford for return of his
money, and finally brought suit for
the recovery of his $500.
During the suit Danford produced
the order showing power of attorney,
in which Danford had been authorized
to sell the lot and keep from the pro-
ceeds thereof for his services in the
divorce suit any sum which, added to
$500 already paid for services, would
aggregate not more than $780,
Danford alleged that he had paid out
$110 for detective work in the case and
$257 for services and that $67 was still
due him.
Cook then alleged that the order was
a forgery and Danford was arrested.
Yesterday an expert testified that it
did not appear that the same man had
WIllltl DUlH tHS WHlCn dp-
peared on a deed and those which were
appended to the order of power of at
torney.
1t was suggested by attorneys for
the prosecution that the paper upon
which the order had been written,
being very thin, might have been fitted
over the heavier deed, which Danford
had in his possession, and the name of
Cook traced onto the lighter paper.
The papers were produced and it was
found that the signature on the order
fitted exactly over that on the deed.
Danford Produces Witness
Danford took the stand in his own
defense and stated that Cook had
signed the paper and that the order
showing power of attorney was per-
fectIy legitimate. A clerk in Danford's
office swore that he had seen Cook
sign the order on October 7.
Danfords friends have all along
contended that there is no basis for
the charges.
Following the taking of evidence the
case was taken under advisement, and
Justice Downey will hand down his
til AZ1-