Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-11-27
MILLIONS AT STAKE.
Heirs Fighting Over the Wealth of a
Deceased Bonanza King.
A QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATION.
Estate Aggregating Over $12,O0O,OOO, in
Both East and West.
THE DEAD CIGSUS WAS A HARD CASE


suddenly, and hardly had rigor- been
noticed before the scramble for his millions
began. AT his deathbed there were very
few who ould reasonably hope to share in
the distribution of his millions. They knew
his possessions represented millions, but
how many? That was point upon which
his most intimate business associates were
left to wonder.
Those in the West knew he had money in
the East while those on the Atlantic Coast,
especially in New York, knew he had large
mining interests in the West. So a guess
was all that any one could hazard as to his
wealth. Some of them had watched the
process of accumulation without even
making an estimate OF the value of the
properties, willing to accept any
crumbs that might fall to their lots in the
final distribution. Two days after Mr..
Davis death the public heard that fully
81, ,OOO, 900 had been left by the dead man,
and a genuine sensation was created when
it was announced that no will had been left.
SCRAMBLE BEGINS AT ONCE.
Many persons were positive that will
had been dra wn; one or two OF his business
associates expressed q willingness to swear
that they had heard Mr.. Davis say he had
made will; but no one could say that the
contents of the document had ever been
told by the millionaire. So there began an
immediate scramble for the position of high
distributor of the worldly wealth, with its
accustomed percentage in such cases made
and provided.
The public curiosity was aroused when
John A. Davis, brother of the deceased,
made application for letters of adminlstra-
tion. This was the signal for opening to
the public gaze all the chapters of the rather
eventful history of a bachelor who had not
entertained orthodox ideas of virtue. So
every man who knew bit of personal his
tory was brought to the witness-stand and
his story given to the public, with pretty
bits of sensational gossip attached as facts.
The brothers testified that Millionaire Davis
had not married, and that no children could
claim him as parent. But before the hearing
had progressed very lar children began
focking in, accompanied by mothers, who
readily acknowledged the children in the
hope OF obtaining a portion of the money
left by the millionaire.
THE PRIZE GROWS IN VALUE.
Certainly more of the sensationalism was
added in this way than was necessary, and
SO brazen were the claims that the women
succeeded in bringing themselves into con-
tempt without substantiatlng the claims
made.
As witness after witness was called, the
total of wealth was swelled until the estate
reached the handsome figure of S12, 200, 900,
and established the fact that with the excep-
ton OF Marius Daily, the business partner OF
Senator Hearst, and j. B. Haggin, Mr..
Davis was the wealthiest of Montana men,
and in the personal history OF the rich men
of this State not one biography presents
more illustrations of self-denial and moder-
ate living than does that of this apparently
parsimonious millionaire.
The opinion handed down to-day relates
solely to letters Of administration. The Dis
trict Court of Butte appointed John A.
Davis, a brother of the deceased millionaire,
administrator. Henry A. Root, of New
York, nephew, who represented the East
ern relatives, was also an applicant for let
tiers, and will move for a new hearing, alleg-
ing that John A. Davis was not proper
person, alleging incompetency, by reason of
drunkenness, improvidence and want of un-
derstanding and integrity.
WANT A NEW ADMINISTRATORS.
Evidence was introduced in support Of
the allegations, as well as evidence to show
error in the defense of respondent against
the allegations. This second class of evil
dence relates
First, to the alleged insuficlency of the
evidence to Justify the finding of the court
against the alleged causes of incompetency,
and
Second, to errors of law alleged to have
occurred at the trial and been excepted to by
appellant. AS to the alleged disqualified
tion by reason of drunkenness, the opinion
finds no error in the ruling of the court be-
low The question does not turn upon the
tact that intoxicating liquor was used to
some extent.
The drunkenness contemplated by the
statute is that which follows from excessive,
inyeterate and continued use of intoXicants
to such an extent as to render the victim of
the habit an unsafe agent for the care Of
property or the transaction of business. 1t
is admitted by appellants counsel that the
| evidence introduced to establish the incom-
| petencv of defendant by reason of drunken
ness is meager. No witnesses were willing
to testify that John A. Davis was unable to
| transact business by reason of drunkenness,
nor did they testify to other facts from
which this court could draw such conclu-
| sion.
| SOME CoUNTER-CHARGES
Testimony for the respondent shows. on
the contrary, that he is capable of, and had
been attending to, important business, up to
! the time of this hearing. In the same way
| the charge of improvldence is not sustained
| by proving that since 1885, and after legal
separation from his wife, the appellant has
| not supported her and his minor children.
| He has no estate, and at the advanced age
OF 60 years he is not possessed of property
| Want of understanding and integrity is, in
the same way, held to be not sustained by
| the evidence.
On this point the evidence is reviewed
very fully, as is the alleged error in exclud-
| inc certain nroff red evidence IT is nrped
that the fact that the respondent has ID son
with claims against the estate should dis
qualify the respondent from acting as ad-
ministrator, because he would be likely to
favor his sons claim. This fact" says
the opinion, ''has no bearing upon the
question of John A. Davis integrity
The opinion concluded by ordering that
the judgment of the lower court be affirmed,
with COSTS Judge Blake, in his dissent,
| makes no objection to the finding of the
lower court i'll respect to non-competency
by reason OF drunkenness, but goes into the
| question of the integrity of the respondent
exhaustively. He finds that on that ground
the motion for reversal of the finding of
the lower court should have been sustained
| He also finds that the lower court was in
error in refusing certain testimony tending
to further establish want OF integrity and
a conspiracy.
LEGAL DOCTORS DIFFER
His opinion touches on the fact that A, j,
Davis, .Jr., the son of the respondent, has a
claim of S665, 900 against the estate; that
Erwin Davis, the brother of the respondent,
owes the estate $3.50, 900, and that these two
have always stood behind the respondent in
his fight with other claimants. Further
more the respondent on July 25 1890, filed
petition asking that the order which ap-