Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-11-20
STEVENS WILL CASE.
All the Issues Involved Fully Argued Be
fore the Supreme Court.

All the issues involved fufly ArBneu be
fore the Supreme Court.
In Department Two of the Supreme
Court yesterday the contested matter Of the
estate of the late A. J. Stevens was argued
The deceased (who was Master Mechanic
for the Southern Pacific Company left a
will in which he bequeathed all his prop
erty to his wife. He made no mention in
the will of any of his children. His
| daughter, Mrs. Hubbard, claimed her share
of the estate as a pretermitted heir, under
Section 1907 Of the Civil Code, which pro-
vides: when any testator omits to pro-
! vide in his will for any of his children, or
the issue of any deceased child, unless ii
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 il he had died intestate, and
succeeds thereto, as provided in the pre-
ceding section
Judge Van Fleet held that Mrs. Hubbard
was omitted from the will that it did not
appear that such omission was intentional,
and that she was entitled to one fourth of
the estate. He also held that the proceed
ings for the adoption of Mrs. Hubbard
son, Willie Stevens, were illegal and void,
because the County Judge did not have
authority, under the State Constitution as
it then was, to hear and determine adoption
cases; that such cases are special cases and
can only be determined in some Court of
the State, and that the County Judge was
not the County Court.
From this decision Mrs. A. ]. Stevens
appealed to the Supreme Court for a re-
versal of the judgment.
In arQuinp the matter in the Suprnm
Court yesterday Judge benson, for Mrs.
Stevens, contended that parole proof was
admissible in order to show that the de-
ceased intended to leave his daughter out
of the will. He contended also that the
will showed on its face that she
was Intentionally omitted, because of the
fact that deceased mentioned his grandson,
showing that he had the respondent in his
mind. Counsel further commended that if
Mrs. Hubbard was entitled 10 any share of
the estate it was for not more than one
sixth because the deceased left three chill
dren, two of his own and an adopted child.
On the question of the adoption of Willie
Stevens by the deceased, counsel claimed
that under the law Of this State the exer-
else of judicial functions is not required;
that it is simply matter of agreement be-
tween the parties in the presence of the
County Judge.
A. P. Catlin and g. E, Blanchard, coun-
sci for Mrs. Hubbard, claimed that parole
evidence is not admissible TO show the in
tention of the testator, and if the bill does
not contain any direct reference or any
personal mention of any child of the tesla
tor such child inherits the share of the es-
tate she would have succeeded to had there
been no will, under section 1907 of the
Civil code. The decisions of the Supreme
Court of this State heretofore made were all
direct and positive against the contention
of the appellant, and have established the
law on this point to be that the intention of
the testator must be gathered from the Ian
guage of the will itself, and that parole evi.
deuce to show such intention or any inten-
ton is not admissible.
Counsel argued that the testator, in men,
tioniDg his grandson, does not show that
he intended to disinherit his daughter.
Numerous cases were cited in support of
| these propositions. Upon the question of
adoption, counsel commended that cases of
adoption in this State are special cases, and
can only be heard in some of the Courts
authorized by the Constitution; that the
County Judge was not the County Court,
and that the law, before an adoption can
be made complete, requires the examina-
ton of witnesses and the making of an
order or decree that the child be hence
forth treated in all respects as the child of
the adopting party, and hence involved the
exercise of judicial functions. Counsel
cited cases decided by the Supreme Court
! Of this State in support of this claim.
On the conclusion of the argument,
which was listened to with attention by
the Justices, the matter was submitted.