Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-05-04
CONTEST OVER a WILL.
The Estate of All. stevens-ths subjecl
of q Legal Dispute.

OF q Legal Dispute.
! Judge Van Fleets Court was occupied
yesterday in hearing the objections fled by
Mrs. May Hubbard TO the first annual &C
count Of the executrlx of the estate OF the
late A. ]. Stevens. The executrix is the
widow of the deceased, and the contestant
of the account is their daughter. The lat
ter was represented by Messrs. Catlin &
Blanchard, and Mrs. Stevens by S. c. Dem
! son. Among the items to which reference
was made in Court was donation OF s., coo
by the officials of the Southern Pacific
| Company to Mrs. Stevens, and which they
| declare, in an affidavit was made to herself
| as the widow of a faithful official and en-
| ploye of the company. This item, Mrs
! Hubbard claims, should be returned as part
of the estate. She also holds that the
widow should have charged herself with
some $500 receipts from the renting of
rooms since the death of Mr.. Stevens
| There are several other items of sums paid
I out which Mrs. Hubbard claims her mother
should have charged to herself instead of
| to the estate.
| During the hearing of the account and
| the interjection of objections thereto, Mrs
Stevens tainted on the witness stand, and
her examination had to be postponed, she
being excused
The case was resumed, however, on other
points. The most interesting feature of
the proceedings grew ont of petition filed
by Mrs. Hubbard on the 23d of last month
as one of the heirs-at-law. It seems that
Mr.. Stevens, in making his will, did not
| mention either his son (Fred) or daughter
May, but did mention the latter's child,
for whose benefit he requested his wife to
set aside 81, 600 to be invested for the child
and paid to him on reaching his majority.
The claim OF Mrs. Hubbard to an heirship
at law is based upon the provisions of Sec
ton 1907 of the Civil Code, which reads:
When any testator omits to provide in his
will for any of his children. or for the issue of
any deceased child, unless it appears that such
omission was intentional. such child or the
issue OF such child, must have the same share
in the estate of the testator as if he had died
interstate, and succeeds thereto as provided in
the preceding section.
Counsel for Mrs. Stevens opposed Mrs.
Hubbard's claim to any portion. of the
estate, and argued that the omission of her
name from the will was intentional; that
the will was made by decedent when he
was in the full vigor of health, with his
mental faculties unimpaired, as proven by
the fact that he was conducting affairs of
great responsibility. Counsel held that the
inference Of the law was that Stevens, bv
not mentioning his daughter, but going
beyond her and specifically providing for
her child, intended to omit her from heir
ship to any part of the estate. In his argu-
ment he quoted from decision in Mas
sachusetts case (Wilder VS.. Doss, 18th Re-
ports) in which the Court held that the
naming of some person intimately con-
nected with child not provided for in
will was sufficient evidence that such child
or issue was not forgotten, and not scci-
dentally omitted
The petitioners counsel held that under
the Code of this State their client is. amply
protected in her claim to a share III the
estate, and combatted the proposition that
she was Intentionally omitted from the
will.
During the argument counsel for Mrs.
Stevens produced and offered in evidence a
certified copy of decree issued by Judge
Clark in 1878, in which A. ]. Stevens and
wife were awarded the custody of their
grandchild-by consent of their daughter
and her husband, given in Court-they 1.-THE
grandparents) legally adopting the child.
The significance of this evidence lies in the
fact that, if the child be a legally adopted
heir, the share that would fall to its mother
if her claim to heirship should be allowed
would be reduced from one fourth 10 one
sixth.
Counsel for Mrs. Hubbard argued the in
suficiency of the document offered, and
said that a search of. the County Clerks
Office failed to reveal the existence of the
original or any record of such an order
from the bench.
Judge benson replied that the County
Clerk would be placed on the stand to tes-
tify that he had seen such an original
document in his office while searching for
other papers.
The copy offered in evidence was made
in 1879, and has been in the possession of
Mrs. Stevens ever since. Its production
was evidently surprise to the counsel for
Mrs. Hubbard, as they felt quite certain
that no such evidence could be found.
The further hearing of the case was con-
tinued until this morning at 10 o'clock.