The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-01-21

wealthy millman, who died in May of
last year.
The papers in the contest of the will
were filed in the Superior Court yester-
day afternoon by Johnson, Johnson q
Johnson, attorneys for Minnie I. Ian
caster Of Augusta, Maine, and Charles J.
Williams of East Acton, Mass.
The former is a niece and the latter a
nephew Of the deceased merchant, and
they assert that they, with Sarah Will
at law and next of kin.
WILLIAMS WILL.
Llewellyn Williams, it will be remem-
bered, left an estate valued at some S3l5,-
600. Documents were filed in court and
were accepted as the last win and tesla
ment Of the deceased, with the codicils
thereto. The will bore the date of August
4, 1887, and the codicils, January ,, 1890,
April %, 1891, and May l, 1891. BY the
terms Of this will he left the bulk OF his
fortune to Lucy AuZerais, his adopted
daughter. This amounted to some SZ75,-
900. The remainder, 10000, was divided
between four Of the deceaSed'S wife's
relatives. The contestants were LETT ''out
in the cold"
The allegations Of the contestants are
written pages, and are quite sensational
a their nature.
The contestants begin by saying that at
the time Williams executed his will he
was not OF sound or dispOsing mind and
was incompetent to execute q will The
will, they say further, was not duly exc
cuted or attested by said decedent, or by
che subscribing witnesses thereto; that
the same was not subscribed at the end
~ Williams himself, nor did any person
In ms presence or by his direction sub
scribe his name; that the ''pretended''
subscription was not made in the pres
ence OF the attesting witnesses, or either
Of them, nor was it acknowledged by
Williams TO them or either Of them to
have been made by him or by his author
lily; that Williams did not at the time of
subscribing or ack nOwledging the will,
OF at any other time. declare to the attest
ing witnesses that the instrument was
his Will; that the witnesses did not sign
their names as such at the end OF the IN
strument at the request of Williams or
IN his presence.
The same charges are made with re-
ference to the codicils.
DUREsS AND MENACE.
Resuming, the contestants aver tEatthe
VIII and cOdicils were executed by the
deceased under "duress and menace"
and by reason of fraud and undue infiu-
ence eXerted over him by Lucy Williams,
ll,
leraIs, his adopted daughter. They charge
that Mrs Williams was a woman of
strong will and domineering spirit, ex-
erting q controlling and sometimes over
towering influence upon those who came
into contact with her. In 1870, they say,
she conceived the idea of inducing her
husband to so arrange his property and
affairs as TO exclude his own relatives
from all participation therein after his
death, and to permit his wife and her
relatives, or such other persons as she
should designate, to receive and eniovtbe
same; and 10 that end she procured to be
brought from the city of BROOKLYN New
York, daughter Of her half-sister, Mrs.
Geo. w. Strickland. named one Lucy
Williams Strickland, aged six years; and
prevailed upon her husband to consent to
the reception of the child into their home
In 1875 a form of adoption was gone
through, which the contestants allege was
not legal.
ALLEGED EsTRANGENENT.
The child remained with the Williamses
continuously until her marriage in 1887.
The contestants claim that until certain
acts OF Mrs. Williams the deceased was
on good terms with his relatives the con
testants), and had repeatedly announced
ms intention OF so distributing his prop
erty as to give them each good share.
referring to the adopted child the
contestants say that at the time Of her
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
affected with a species Of emotional in
sanity, and was otherwise deficient: but
that this was concealed from the deceased
by Mrs. Williams, for fear that he would
return the child TO its parents; that as
the child grew older these defects became
more and more pronounced, but the fact
that the deceased was busy and through
the influence of his wife, he did not be-
come aware of the state of affairs. They
assert that Mrs. Williams motive in hid
ing the girls defects, and thus prevent
ING her being sent away, was to have an
heir to the Williams fortune; that she in
tended to systematically Wheedle and
coerce her husband into leaving all OF his
property 10 the girl to the exclusion of
his own relatives, the contestants.
Finally they say the girls condition
became such that Mrs. Williams, in order
to still conceal the true state of things
from her husband, sent the girl to sem
mary known as The Elms' in Spring
field, Mass. At the request of the de-
ceased, one of the contestants, Minnie
Lancaster, accompanied the adopted
child to the school and attended to the ar
engagements, but the girls conduct at the
school was SUCH that she was compelled
to leave. The Principal of the school
wrote TO Mr.. Williams, and this was the
first information he had of the girls
traits, but Mrs. Williams interposed
again and persuaded her husband that
the Principal had misrepresented the
facts. The girl went to the home of the
contestant, Lancaster, but became very
i'll there, and demand was made up0n
the Williamses to remove her as she
could not care for her. Mr.. and Mrs.
Williams went East and brought her
back to Sacramento.
THREATENED DIsINHERITANCE.
The contestants allege further that
Mrs Williams blamed the contestant
Minnie Lancaster, for the seminary cpl
sode, became greatly embittered toward
her and threatened that she would have
her husband disiuherit her. and stated
that she herself tMrs. Willams) would
see that the contestant got none of the
Williams property.
Mrs. Williams did complain to her hus-
band it is alleged, for the purpose of in
ducing her husband to believe that Mrs.
Lancaster had not bestowed the proper
care and attention upon Lucy Williams
strickland, and had not treated her IN a
suitable manner, and for the purpose of
removing the favorable Impression
which she knew had been created upon
Williams, in favor of Mrs. Lancaster, by
the services rendered by her, and for the
purpose of making him believe that this
contestant had not complied with his re-
quest to care for Lucy.
The complaint goes on then to recite
various improprieties and coercions prac-
ticed upon the deceased by his wife after
the arrival home in Sacramento. 1t is set
forth that she systematically deceived
him regarding the contestants, and per-
suaded him that Mrs. Lancaster, in the
interest Of herself and the other relatives,
ilI-treated Lucy because she stood be-
tween them and the Williams fortune.
Then Mrs. Williams health began to
fail and a governeSs was employed to
take care of Lucy. who was specially in