The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-11-17
HIS HEIRS AT ODDS
Contest Over the Will of
Joshua Hendy.
A SECOND SERIOUS ATTEnPT.
Four Heirs Profiting Under the VIII
Accused of Influencing the
Deceased.

Another contest over the large estate OF
the late Joshua Hendy was commenced
yesterday in the Probate Court.
Joshua Hendy died in this city on Octo-
Der q, 1891, leaving an estate in this city of
real and personal property of great value,
including the Joshua Hendy Iron Works.
On October "a. 1891, document, dated
May 81, 1883, purportlng TO he the last Will
Of the deceased, together with what pur-
ported to be codicil dated July 80. 1891,
was filed IN the Probate Court by Samuel j.
Hendy. John II. Hendy aud Mary Frances
McGurn, to whom letters testamentary
were in due time issued.
Shortly afterward contest was started
by Josephine Green, niece Of the deceased,
but this was compromised.
The contest started yesterday for the re-
vocation of probate was filed by CARRIER,
B0slt & Bishop and w. w. FOote as attor-
ney for Samuel J. Hendy. a brother of The
deceased, George ". Hendy and Alyldia
Jane Raugh. respectively nephew and niece
OF the deceased.
In the petition the heirs-at-law are stated
TO comprise Samuel Hendy. aged 90. a
brother; George W. Hendy, 80. a nephew;
Samuel j. Hendy, Sc, a nephew; John II.
Rendy. 81, q nephew Alvidia J. Raugh.
y, niece; Josephine Green, 80, niece;
Harold Green. 9. q grandmother Of the de-
ceased; Mildred Green, 6, q grandniece Of
deceased; May Frances McGurn. "a, a niece /;
John NJ. HendY, 90, nephew. Of South
America; John Doe Hendy. Richard Roe
Hendy, Jane Doe, Susan Roe. of London,
England; Mary Stiles Of Australia.
The grounds Of the contest are the usual
ones, viz: that the eceased was not of
sound and disposng mind, or free from IN
due influence at the time that he executed
the Will and codicll: also that the same
were executed on account of false and
fraudulent representations to deceased by
parties interested.
The bulk of the estate was left In equal
shares TO Samuel j. Hendy, John II. Hendy
and Mary Frances McGurn. who. together
with Minnie Hendy. wife Of Samuel J.
Hendy. are especially aimed at in the
petition.
This instrument claims that on May 1,
1855. they had design TO influence and
control Joshua Hendy in the disposition of
MS estate TO their own great advantage and
10 the great prejudice OF the petitioners and
other relatives
Il further alleges that Hendy at the time
of the execution of the will and codicil was
suffering from an incurable disease. pro-
duclng great physical and mental weakness,
prohibiting his attending to business and
making him irritable and susceptible to fat
terry and prejudice and to the influences and
articles Of designing persons.
Continuing the petition states that the
four mentioned on May /, 1883. induced
Joshua Hendy to take up his abode will
Mr.. and Mrs. Samuel j. Hendy.
That on May 81. 1888, these four, "by
means OF crafty and insidious flattery. ca
jOlery, wheeding, Importantly. prejudice,
conStraint, coercion and trickery," forced
Hendy to sign the will referred TO-
That they on July l, 1891 persuaded him
TO remove to San Rafael TO execute the
eodicil on the 30th Of that month, he re-
naming at San Rafael trusting in them,
until September 9. 1891.
In conclusion the petitioners urge that
the four heirs in point made false and
fraudulent representations 10 deceased,
well knowing them to be false, their meth
DDS being the stimulation and pretenson OF
great love, affection and regard on their
part for deceased and that other relatives
did not like him SO much and were unwor-
thy to receive under the will anything more
than a very small portion Of the estate
The petitioners, therefore. pray that the
letters granted be revoked and another ad-
mlDStratOT appointed.