The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-14

feeerson's interview on November IA.
which did not occur till sixteen days after
Reynolds said he had an interview in
which the old man said such talk was nom
sense. He contended that the charitable
objects Mr.. Yesler had in mind ut that
time we're simply the gifts to the Sarah b.
fesier. The declaration he was said to
nave made to Jordan, that his will could
not be broken, was evidence in Mrs. Yes
ier's favor; that Mr.. Yesler meant he had
LETT the disposition of his property TO the
operation OF the law. All the CONVERSE
ton with Mr.. Peterson, Mr.. Crawford.
Mrs. Sackman, Mrs. Bentley, Mrs. Mad
docks and Mr.. Reynolds were presumptive
evidence that Mr.. Yesler had no will: that
he destroyed it in his lifetime. as he had
plenty Of time TO do before taking to his
bed.
The state was trying to make the de-
tense prove that there was no will in ex-
istence at the time Of Mr.. Yesler's death.
though the state should prove the ex-
istence Of it. In case Of its multi alton or
destruction the state would have to prove
that some person other than Mr.. Yesler
had done it In order to establish the will.
He read a series Of presidents. both Ameri-
can and English. to show that the burden
OF proof was on the person trying to estab-
lish will, as the law holds that when .
will is traced TO the possession of the
testator and cannot be found at the time
of his death. or is found in mutilated
condition. the presumption is that it has
been revoked. A will was not in operation
till the death Of the testator, and for that
reason the death of Mr.. Yesler ought to
have been proved. The state had not even
proved that the will had been executed.
though proof of its due execution
was the first requisite. and after that its
existence at the time of the testator's
death. Not a particle of such testimony
had been offered or attempted to be offered
by the state. Mr.. White contended also
that Mr.. Yesler was in the habit Of Great
ing the impression that he had made q
will when he had made none, quoting as
an instance his giving a supposed will to
Reynolds for safe keeping and two days
later writing for it and describing it as an
unexecuted will. He drew the conclusion
that Mr.. Yesler was also deceiving others
In speaking of having made his will.
Mr.. White then attacked Reynolds evil
cence. saying that his clenched hands
and trembling manner were not character
who is an amatuer farmer at Yew, where
1t would take good many acres of land to
support biuejay, comes here and stays in
town at his own expense trying to find a
will, instead of digging out stumps at
Iew." He assailed Reynolds for going to
see Daniel Kelieher while on the stand,
and called attention to discrepancies in
his statements about the unexecuted
wi
forward it to Massillon. o. The statement
OF Reynolds that the will was in the silver
cabinet was characterized as a mere sur
mise. He described Reynolds as one Of
the go-betweens for the sale of the will to
Mr.. Lowman, not quite as criminal as
Kellogg, but equally contemplate. Rey-
nolds' own acts and conversation with
Mrs. Yesler on November % show he did
not believe Mr.. iesler had made a will,
though he claims Mr. Yesler had told him
he had. Then he attacked Mrs. Fay, say
ing:
1t was made perfectly clear that Mrs Fay sur.
missed things and swo,e to them as facts. She
Is constitutionaliy suspicious aud would hear
the banshee cry every time she heard the wind
whistle. and would . fairy under every
daisy.
He proceeded to analyze Mrs. Fay's con-
versations with DR.. Annie Russell, and
said she forgot just where the remem-
brance ought to come in. She had the Op-
portunity to go through Mr.. Yesler's
papers; it would have been convenient
for her to have testified in a conspiracy by
Drs. Van Buren, and Russell to set up a
will. He quoted her contradictions in re-
gard to the messenger who brought the
note asking her to go and see Mr.. kelle-
her, and said she orly mentioned having
told Detective Harold about the will when
thrown abruptly off her guard. He quoted
from her interviews with Mrs. Yesler on
December the remark she made about
Mrs. Hesler's not being used to maid or
companion as evidence of ill-wil Such a
conversation was not likely between Mrs.
Yesler and a servant and perfect stranger
Next he attacked her testimony as to
the famous blue envelope. According to
Mrs. Fay. she saw Mrs. Yesler's writing
for the first time on December IA; did not
see 1t again for six weeks until January 30
when DIR. Russell showed her the letter of
dismissal addressed to DR.. +. /. Smith.
and yet instantly recognized il. Because
she sees that there is no will, she Jumps to
the conclusion that IL was in the blue en-.
velope and tells Mr.. Lowman about it and
hc pays her so week to stay here, but
she denies in her cross-examin alton that
she told Mr.. Low man about it at their first
interview. Ii the will was in the blue en-
ve.ope. what was there suspicious about
Mrs. Iesler's burning the letters at her
desk2 He charged her with swearing to
mere surmises. She focused everything
on that December IA and lac believed she
was a party TO an infamous conspiracy
He called attention TO the fact that she
claimed To have heard Mr.. YesIer say he
had made his will. and that Minnie"
knew where 1t was, when she must have
been n least thir,y-fve feet from the head
of the bed, the sound being DISTRACTED by
hanging curtains. Mr. Yesler was yerv
weak snd his false teeth were probably
out. He did not believe Mrs. FAY heard
this talk, hut believed she had been talk
ing with DR.. Russell in order to fabricate
a will.
Mr.. White then changed his tack and
argued that such testimony could be used
to show that there was an unrevoked will.
but not To show that Mrs. Yesler knew
where the WI, was nor to prove a Grim
inal charge. The contents must be proved |
in order TO prove an intention 10 defraud |
MIR. Lowman and others, as the complaint |
alleged; a mere allegation of an intent 10 |
defraud somebody was not sufficient. but |
the intent 10 defraud the persons named |
must be shown, and therefore the con. |
tents mus, be proved. After inquiring |
where were the two witnesses, he took up |
Van Bureaus stories of the contents of |
the Will. His testimony was no, |
for he was q party TO the al |