Sacramento Record-Union, October 16, 1894
SAN FRANCISCO, October 15 — Mrs. John Martin is endeavoring to reopen the famous will case by a motion for a new trial with her attorneys. She will also bring suit for $500,000 damages against Mrs. Henry Martin, on the ground that the latter told people that “Baby John” was not Mrs. John Martin’s child; that she got it from a foundling asylum and that she poisoned her husband.

San Francisco Call, October 21, 1894
An attempt is to be made to secure a rehearing of the long and sensational Martin will case. Attorneys L. £. Fnillips and John H. Henderson, who have recently formed a co-partnership, have taken up the cudgels on behalf of Mrs. John Martin and her three-year-old child, and have filed with the County Clerk a notice of their intention to move for a new trial.

The grounds on which a new trial is bought are:

First, irregularity in the proceedings of the jury by which the proponent was prevented from having a fair trial.

Second, orders of the court by which the proponent was prevented from having a fair trial.

Third, abuse of discretion, by which the proponent was prevented from having a fair trial.

Fourth, misconduct oi the jury'

Fifth, accident which ordinary prudence oould not have guarded against.

Sixth, surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.

Ssventh, newly discovered evidence, material for the proponent, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at ttie trial.

Eighth, insufficiency of evidence to justify the verdict.

Ninth, that the verdict is against law/

Tenth, errors in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the proponent.

Sacramento Record-Union, October 24, 1894
SAN FRANCISCO, October 23 — Mrs. Isabella J. Martin today began suit against Ms. Henry Martin for $750,000 for damages alleged to be done to her character and standing in the community by the defendant.

San Franciscos Call, November 4, 1894
Mrs. Isabella J. Martin has filed her answer to the suit instituted by Albert T. Roche, on behalf of Grove L. Johnson, to recover $400, balance of a promissory note for $500 given to secure payment of legal services rendered.

Mrs. John Martin admits the execution of the note, but states that part of the consideration for its execution was that Grove L. Johnson should exercise his best skill in the conduct of the Martin will case until after final judgment had been entered therein.

In spite of Grove Johnson's long and arduous labors, Mrs. John Martin now asserts he did not exercise his best skill, and instances the fact that before the case was under submission to the jury, Grove L. Johnson picked up his things, and in the furtherance of his political ambitions he left the city to “stump” the state, and that "the subsequent proceedings interested him no more."

Johnson left the case to the tender mercies of his junior counsel. Mrs. John Martin further charges Johnson with having neglected to introduce evidence at the trial which was very material to her cause and that of her child; and she also states that Johnson has received from her not $100, but $600 already. So she claims to owe the famous Sacramento lawyer nothing.

San Francisco Call, November 29, 1894
Mrs. John Martin had a chance to add fresh laurels to her already enviable reputation as a litigant yesterday by appearing before Judge Murphy as counsel for herself in the action brought against her by Grove L. Johnson to recover fees. Johnson had agreed to accept baby John’s case on consideration of $1,000, which was given in the shape of two promissory notes for $500 each.

One of these notes is due, and upon it the receipt of $100 is acknowledged. But Johnson never could get his $400 balance, and when he applied for it, he was met with a facetious answer from Mrs. John Martin to the effect that he hadn’t earned it. So the Sacramento lawyer appointed Albert T. Roche his collector and straightway brought suit against Mrs. John.

Before Judge Murphy, the parties assembled yesterday morning. Grove Johnson was there, accompanied by his associate in the Martin will case, Walter H. Linforth, and his attorney, Mr. Benjamin. Messrs. L. E. Phillips and John H. Henderson are now Mrs. John’s attorneys, but they did not accompany the worthy lady, and it was announced that she intended to conduct her own defense.

The preliminary business was soon got over. Then, with flashing eyes, Mrs. John rose and faced Judge Murphy, and at once entered upon a vehement declamation against Johnson, whom she accused of gross dereliction of duty. She blamed him for the loss of her infant son’s case.

“Your Honor,” shouted Mrs. John. “Mr. Johnson did a very wrong thing when he referred to my child before that jury as 'the sinless child of sin.' That is not true and the statement prejudiced the jury against me."

“Madam,” testily interrupted the Judge, “This is not the time to argue the case. If you have any evidence to produce please let us have it."

Johnson said he worked hard enough in all conscience for his eccentric client. He conducted the case in every way in the best interests of the child. Any expressions made use of by him were used to make the best possible impression upon the jury.

“Mr. Johnson,” asked Mrs. John, “did you not write to me after the verdict was rendered saying you would have nothing more to do with the case?"

“No,” replied Johnson. “I simply informed you that I wished to be paid before I performed any more services. You yourself agreed to a substitution of attorneys."

Then Mrs. John tried another tack. “Mr. Johnson, did you not refuse to allow me to take the stand?"

Johnson agreed to this and was understood to say it would have been better for Baby John’s interests if Mrs. Martin had kept away from court altogether.

Linforth took the stand and said that after the trial was over, he consulted with Johnson as to what was to be done. Finally, a letter was composed and written to Mrs. John Martin, wherein Johnson and Linforth offered to remain in the case provided their fees were paid. That was the sole condition imposed.

“You never refused to go on with Mrs. Martin’s case?" asked Attorney Benjamin. Linforth replied in the negative and further stated that the substitution of attorneys was subsequently made by Mrs. Martin’s expressed wish and consent. Mrs. John Martin had promised to pay him $2,500 down for conducting the Martin will case, with a contingent fee of $5,000 in case of victory. He had been waiting for his money for some time and young Linforth thought it was all very hard lines.

“Your Honor,” suddenly exclaimed Mrs. John Martin, "I have a letter from Mr. Johnson in my possession in which he positively declines to have anything further to do with my case. I demand a continuance until Friday to enable me to produce that letter."

“Can’t give you till Friday,” was Judge Murphy’s curt reply. “Produce your letter by 2 o’clock this afternoon."

Mrs. John pleaded, and Judge Murphy finally gracefully acknowledged his defeat. “Make it Friday," he said.

Mrs. John beamed with joy, and as she gathered up her books and papers she remarked, loud enough for Johnson and Linlorih to hear, that she had spent $8,000 on the Martin will case and had paid one expert $150. Then she bounced out of the courtroom to get ready for Friday’s battle.

San Francisco Call, December 1, 1894
The case of Albert T. Roche, assignee of Grove L. Johnson, against Mrs. Isabella J. Martin, to recover $400, balance of a promissory note for legal services rendered, was peremptorily ordered submitted by Judge Murphy yesterday. It will be remembered that Mrs. John distinguished herself on Wednesday last by appearing in person to defend her case, and that she enjoyed much pleasure in the cross-examination of Grove Johnson and his youthful associate in the Martin will case, Walter H. Linforth.

Finally Judge Murphy granted a continuance of the case until yesterday morning in order to give Mrs. John Martin time to produce a letter which she claimed to have in her possession, which Grove Johnson wrote to her directly after the conclusion of the trial declining to have anything more to do with her case. This letter was to form part of Mrs. John's evidence in support of her contention that Johnson neglected her interests and thereby did not earn his fee.

Yesterday morning, however, neither the letter nor even Mrs. John appeared in court, and Judge Murphy, after waiting a respectable time, ordered the case submitted. Mrs. John did not hear of this until midday, and she waxed highly indignant at Judge Murphy's peremptory conduct.

She went over to the Supreme Court in the afternoon with visions of writs of habeas corpus and motions for new trials before her eyes. She wanted to set aside the submission of her case. Attorney Kowalsky, however, happened to be there at the time, and he very graciously showed Mrs. John what steps to take.

Later in the afternoon Mrs. John filed with the county clerk an affidavit in support of her motion in reopen the case. In this document, Mrs. John deposes that she failed to appear in court owing to an error. She had understood Judge Murphy to continue her case until Friday at 2 p. m. and not 10 a. m. On this ground Mrs. John Martin will seek to have her case reopened.

San Francisco Call, December 4, 1894
Judge Murphy yesterday morning granted Mrs. John Martin'a motion to set aside the submission of the suit brougiit by Grove L. Johnson against her for the recovery of his fees. The case was proceeded with at once. Mrs. John Martin read an argument, in which she denounced Grove Johnson as if he were the worst enemy she had ever had. All to no purpose, however, as at the close ot the case Judge Murphy gave judgment lor Grove Johnson for the $400 he demanded and costs of action.