The morning call., 1892-11-20
HIS MOTHER WISH
Charles L. Fair Is Refused
Half a Million.
MRS. FAIRS WILL CONSTRUED.
Having Considered That Instrument,
Judge Coffey Declines to Pay
Over the Legacy.

Charles L. Fair recently petltioned the
Probate Court for partial distribution of
the estate of Theresa Fair, who was the
wife OF ex-senator James G. Fair. The
petitioner is the younger and now only sur
Yiving son.
The question presented for decision was
when should the trustees appointed by the
will paw TO the petitioner, Charles l.. Fair
under IFS terms the 100000 therein prima-
rily allotted to his brother, James G. Fair
Jr., as his portion of the estate OF Theresa
Fair, decea sed, their mother, the said James
having died long before his portion or that
of Charles could by the terms of the will
become due and payable had james lived.
The petitioner, Charles l.. Fair, claims
that under the will the portion allotted to
James should be paid at once 10 him. while
the respondents contend that immediate
payment thereof Is forbidden by its terms
and that the trustees cannot comply with
the demands of the petitioner without vio-
lstiDg their trust as defined by the testatrix
in her will.
The petitioner, Charles L. Fair, bases his
claim of the right TO have paid TO him with
out delay the share previously allotted 10
James upon two clauses Of the will. as fol-
lows;
Il give and bequeath to my son. James
Graham Fair Jr., the sum of $500, 600, and
direct the same 10 be paid to him when he
shall have attained the age of 80 years, but
not before then, and that meantime there
shall be paid to him monthly the sum OF
$780,
"In case my said son, James Graham Fair
Jr., die without wife or lawful issue suryiv-
ing him, the portion hereby allotted 20 him
shall be paid 10 MY said son. Charles Lewis
Fair if living. and if not living then to bis
surviving wife or lawful issue. II any
there be-"
The entire will is then recited, and the
court bases its decision upon the intention
of the testatriX, as indicated by the instru-
ment in its entirety.
The decision is substantially thai Mrs.
Theresa Fair wished TO make provision for
each Of the children in the form OF tenn
pOrary monthly allowance aud TO give them
full possession Of the principal sum be-
Queathed TO them when they should attain
a certain prescribed age.
tine one purpose of the testatrix," says
the court, appears TO have been to make
adequate provision for the children and
their maintenance in life. The postpone
ment of possession of their legacies was
precautionary measure to guard against the
principal sum being lost or wasted and the
leSatees being left without provision for
their maintenance. This purpose is mani
Tested in the will and forms its prominent
feature"
The fact that the testatrix did not think it
proper TO continue to apply the same pro-
tectlVe measures 10 legacles payable over to
survivor was accounted for by the con-
lecture of counsel that such measures were
not necessary. as such survivor had already
been protected to the extent of his original
legacy. which would be preserved in any
event.
The conclusion of the court is as follows:
1t is the opinion of the court that the
clause relied upon by the petitioner cannot
be isolated from the context and construed
as separate section of the testament. but
that it must be read and construed as an
integral portion Of that instrument, TO be
read and construed with the other constitu-
ents of tile will.
ut fellows that the petition for partial
distribution filed herein is prematurely
presented, aud should be and is denied"