The morning call., 1892-08-02
WALKERLEY'S ESTATE.
The Non-Residsnt Heirs Directing
Iheir Attorney.


Their Attorney.
More litigation has grown out of the
estate Of William Walkerley, who died on
September 16. 1887. In Alameda County.
The litigation is in equity by eight nieces
and one nephew Of .he deceased living In
England and against Frederick E. Whitney,
attorney-at-law, TO enjoin him from appear
ing In any court or place whatever and from
asking or receiving any other sum as fees
In said estate as attorney for them.
These nieces and nephew are beneficiaries
under the VIII In an estate valued at $780,
600 and upward. including among other
assets the UnIon-Pacihc Club building at
Post and Stockton streets. By will Walk
erley had devised all property to Martin
Bacon. Frank Barker and Columbus Bart
lett In special trust, among other things to
pay TO his young widow and the pOsthumous
child 5000 semi-annually, and after all
expenses upon the trust to distribute annu.
ally fot % years after his death the residue
OF income, share and share alike, among
these nleces aud nephew and their de-
scendants.
This trust Is not terminated. aud only
Bartlett has been released from il. The
trust estate yields about $4,000 annual
rental. and since the death the plaintiffs
have accumulated an interest of upward of
100000 IN the estate as beneficiaries. The
will was admitted to probate in October.
1ocfs n1u tulcc Mays d1leI TIE petition was
MED Whitney, without their consent pro-
cured from Judge y. Hamilton of the Su-
perior Court of Alameda County an ap-
pointment as attorney for the absent heirs,
though 1t is claimed that he made false sug-
gestlons TO procure this appointment
While pretending 10 act for them he has
already drawn $1,000. whereas the bene-
fclarieS have not seen the color OF as much
as 81, although" as they say, Large in
comes. rents and profits have grown due to
ftnWN yaall -
been scuandered in said attorneys fees and
other unjust claims of like unjust char
acter." They charge that Whitney has not
faithfully defended their rights, but has
frequently declared that the widow and
child are entitled 10 homestead out Of the
bequeathed trust property; furthermore,
that $4,000 OF the property belongs abso-
lutely 10 her and the child, and Is not tiust
pro- erty at all. and furthermore. permitted
waste 10 the persons represented by him to
the extent Of at least $4,000.
They have 10 complain OF him that ha has
declared in the Supreme Court openly that
the testator did not have the power TO dis
pose OF his property to trustees. and par
ticularly the part valued 81 $50, 600. There
are several proceedings In the Superior
Court OF Alameda County, and others are
likely to be instituted, and while In Janu-
airy, 1881, whitney was served with notice
that they DO not desire his services or wish
him to appear for them, yet he continues to
90 so. notwithstanding that their interests
demand an attorney of their own selection
and one in whom they may have confidence.
Doubt Is expressed that any one but
court OF equity had power to appoint an at
tOTney for these heirs. and the reason why
this proceeding has been instituted in this
city and county Is that Judge W. Z. Greene
of Alameda, in whose department the estate
is pending. has absolutely declined to hear
any matter in the estate TO which Whitney
Is party, and for this reason had invited
Judge Hunt of this county to sit for him.
wherefore Presiding Judge Trout was
asked to assign the hearing of this matter
to him. The court of Alameda had also
refused to substitute another attorney for
Whitney.