The San Francisco call., 1910-05-24
FRAUD CHARGED
AGAINST HOEFLER
Lawyer Accused of Conspiracy
in Gaining Control of Vine=
yard and Winery

L. M. Hoef1er, the lawyer, partner in
the firm of Bishop, Hoefer, Harwood &
Cook, was accused yesterday of OBJ
tanning control of the Moulton Hill
vineyard company, which owns proper
ties in Sonoma county, by the exercise
of fraud and by conspiracy. This
charge was made by Mary Alberto and
her husband, Ferdinand Albertz, in
complaints in intervention filed in the
suits in which Hoef1er is endeayoring to
recover from the corporation s2S,414,
alleged to be due on promissory notes
of March 1, 1908. and January 1, 1909.
The interveners claim to be the real
owners of the stock, and assert that
Hoefier gained control of the corpora
tion while ostensibly counseline them
as their attorney, adviser and friend"
Instead of the corporation being in
debted to Hoefler in the sum of S2S.414
as is contended, Mr.. and Mrs. Albertz
claim that they are entitled to damages
from him amounting to s24,S50, and sue
for that sum- They say he mismanaged
the vineyard and winery, which are sit
uated in Sonoma county. Upon informa-
tion and belief they charge that he has
appropriated to his own use and benefit
sums belonging to the corporation ex-
ceeding $4,000.
CONSPIRACY Is CHARGED
Explaining how Hoeher acquired
control of the company, the interveners
state that in March, 1907, he advanced
them $4,000 to redeem their stock from
pledge. They never parted with title
to the stock, they aver, and Hoef1er
simply held the stock as security for
the repayment of the $4,000 he had
Cd ic
himself appointed president and four
clerks in his law Office appointed di-
rectors. The interveners charge that
the directors are mere dummies and
tools of Hoef1er and that he conspired
with them to defraud Mr.. and Mrs.
Alberto. Inasmuch as Hoef1er claims
to own the entire stock of the corpora
ton the interveners say he appears to
be suing himself under the name of
the Moulton Hill vineyard company.
DUMMIES ARE USED
From 1897 to June, 1909, Hoef1er was
the attorney and confidential adviser
of the interveners, they say, and when
they resigned in March, 1907, and al
lowed him to name the directors it was
under his advice and direction. Thence
forth Hoefier assumed full control of
the business. He is accused of putting
inexperienced men in charge, permit
ting the destruction of 10 acres of re-
sistant vines worth $4,000, falling to
care for wine in the cellars, thus caus-
ing a loss of 10000 gallons, worth
$4,000; failing to gather 175 tons of
grapes, worth $3.50, and removing
personal property worth $1,000. covered
by a chattel mortgage. Large sums of
money have come into his possession,
of which Hoefier Is accused on infor-
nation and belief of not giving due
and proper credit. These sums, the
interveners say, are more than suff1-
cient to discharge any sum they may
owe him. One of the notes upon which
Hoefler is suing, for $10,1S7.6S, was
authorized and signed by himself as
president and by the dummy secretary,
Leo Mund, the Albertzes assert.
Their prayer is that the notes be
declared null and void. having been
obtained in fraud from the interveners,
and that Hoefler be cast in damages for
s24S5O Similar suits by Hoef1er are
pending in Sonoma county, and the
vineyard properties have been attached
by him in satisfaction of his claim.