The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-15

uaCoh w nay tHdt ne uo0 Deem ltScT1iiy
lifted out of the gutter. but that he had
been taken up by Mr.. YesIer when he was
an impecunious school teacher and was
now a rich man.
Mr.. White having stated that Mrs. Yesler
was not in good health, she was excused
from attending during the rest Of the
argument
John Fairfield took up the afternoon
with his reply on behalf Of the state. and
made one of the most able and logical
statements of a case that have been
heard for some time. After compliment
to Mr.. Whites ability. he met that gen.
tleman's poetical quotation with Byron's
parody on it: There is a tide in the af-
fairs of women. which, taken at the flood,
leads-God knows where" and applied it
to Mrs. Yesler. Then he plunged into an
exposition of the conspiracy law. preiud-
ing il with the accusation against Mr..
White that. in his blind zeal, he had mis-
stated the Law and the facts, and had i'd
died on the feelings of mis- client.
Then he traced the growth of the con-
spiracy law, described its scope and told
the variety Of forms the crime had taken.
The offense charged was not only q COM
mon law offense but was also an offense
under the code. The communicated, con-
nected intent to commit a crime by two or
more persons constituted a conspiracy.
When the fact of conspiracy was once
established any act Of one conspirator was
the act of ali. and when they lead up to
and show conspiracy the acts must be
treated as conspiracy. The court had
right from the facts presented to infer that
conspiracy had been committed. In
nearly all cases conspiracy must be
proved by circumstantial evidence. for it
was next to impossible to prove that the
defendants met and agreed on a common
design. Concurrence of action on mate
rial point was sufficient to lead a jury
to presume concurrence of thought,
whether the acts were separate and
distinct by the parties or not.
He backed up his contention with numer-
Gus quotations from authorities. No man
regretted more than he that Mrs. Yesler
had so connected herself with the destroy
ers of the will that she could not be sepa-
rated from their attempts to defraud the
benefcIaries of the will It was not in
the province of the court to say she was
guilty, but to examine and find whether
there was probable cause to believe she
was connected with the crime.
Mr.. Fairfield then proceeded to review
the testimony and to trace the growth of
the conspiracy. After defending Mr.. Pc
terson's conduct in relating Mrs. Yesler's
employing of him to secure settlement
of some of her husbands property on her
and his interview with Mr.. Yesler, he said
her doing 50 showed that her relations
with him were not rs friendly as had been
he oil cd
the matter over with him. Could it be
wondered at that Mr. Yesler was sur
prised and said: "She ought to have
more confidence in me than that" She
first in cold blood estimated the value of
the property. then sent Mr.. Peterson to
demand deeds to the Pioneer and yellow
blocks. Mr.. Fairfield laid stress on Mr..
Yesler's statement to Mr.. Peterson that
he had made a will and arranged his
affairs. this evidence coming from Mrs.
Yesler's own attorney.
Mr.. YesIer's statement that he had made
his will was explanatory of the statement
that he had arranged his affairs. Mr..
Peterson's suggestion that wills might be
broken and his persistence in urging a
settlement were not consistent with the
idea that he thought Mr.. Yesler was
bluffing him. nor did Mr.. Yesler's en-
phatic refusal to transfer the property
support that theory. The testimony ex-
planned in part why this will should be
gotten out of the way. The subsequent
interview between M Peterson and Mrs.
Yesler showed that she knew Mr.. Yesler
had made will. and her comments
showed she anticipated what was in Mr.
Yesler's mind when providing for her.
Mr.. Peterson told her if her husband died
interstate she would get half of the estate
and then. the speaker went on:
On the one hand there was $4,000 staring
this woman in the face, aud on tho other al
income OF 500 to 5000 a month aud property
worth perhaps $4,000. The most blissful
thought to her would be that the will should be
wiped out and that tine old man should die IN.
testate. Would not a person in that position be
blinded by avarice?
Then she wanted to know the contents
of the will. but Peterson. remembering
Mr.. fesier's anger, objected to trying to
find out. 1t was not surprising that she
herself should want to find out. not from
mere curiosity. and the testimony showed
that before his death she must have
known. She knew there was will: she
questioned Mr.. Yesler's idea of what
well providing for her" meant. and she
was anxious To know the contents of the
will.
S. l.. Crawford's testimony also showed
conelusively that Mr.. Yesler lett a will. 1t
had been argued that he never made Wills.
His destruction of the vii! he showed Mr..
Crawford showed that he went about with
his will made. Mr.. Yesler's statement to
Mr.. Crawford few months before his
death that his affairs mara oil $50.
side by side with his statement to Mr..
Peterson, showed that he had made will
and that his gift TO the Sarah b. Yesier
was provided for In il. The evidence of
Mrs. Sackman and Mrs. Bentley should
not impair that Of Mr.. Crawford, for they
were not probably trained to the retention
OF facts rs Mr.. Crawford was. and he was
known az a careful business man and one
OF the best IN the city. While Mr. Yesler
Stunned the subject when Mrs. Maddocks
tried to find ont whether he had made a
will. he did not deny having made il. At
another time he told her he intended 10
change his will, and afterwards that he
had changed it. Upon Mr.. Whites max.
ing some ejaculation. Mr.. Fairfield turned
10 him and pointed out the number of in
consistent statements he had made.
thereby raising laugh At his expense.
Mr.. Fairfield then took up the testimony
of Mrs. Fay and highly praised her
veraci,y and the salf-sacritice by which she
left her home and lucrative position in
Dublin 10 care for her daughter, who had
been wronged by tiend not worthy the
name of father. Because she had done
this the court was asked not to believe
her. Mr.. Fairfield denounced Mr.. Whites
exposure OF Mrs Eay's sad family history