The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-12-01
The Mansfields Exonerated
From Unpleasant Charges
Of Forgery.
THEJURY GLAD TO BE ALIVE
aynopsts of tho Findings Upon which
the Winning Side Based Their
Cass-Notss of tho
Trial.

The great Pratt will case 10 at an end,
and presumably the contestants are
happy. The mere fact that the jury
have, In the return Of the special Issues,
opened yesterday by Judge CLARK, prac-
ticaliy exonerated the Msnsfields from
the unpleasant charges levelled against
them, will not detract from the value Of
tho verdict, nor the issues springing out
from It.
This case receives additional import.
ance from the fact that it has been in
the courts OF this county for longer
period of time than any other case. 1t
began on September 18th and the last
witness did not step down from the. wit.
ness stand until November 6.b. The
day following learned counsel COM
menced the arguments which lasted I'M
Gil Tuesday afternoon last, when Senator
White concluded mastery effort in re-
view OF the case for the contestants.
OF the legal talent arrayed on either
side there were for the contestants Sem
ator Stephen M. White, j. A. Chapman,
4. l.. Campbell, J. f. Hanloh. For the
proponents, Alexander Campbell. Judge
Charles Silent, Wells & Lee.
The expenses incurred in making legal
con est OF the case have been enormous.
The jirv fees alone aggregated over
$1,000 And ell the time the property
Involved in tie contest has been shrink
ing in value. In 1881, when the first
will WAS made, the property was valued
at $500, 900. In 1885. the time OF another
will, it had SHRINK to 1885 ZOO, and at
the present time it is estimated that
1920, 900 is it's full value. II final set
Element should be deferred for q few
years longer, what with legal expenses,
and the natural decline in values OF az.
ricultural land, 1t will require . very
powerful microscope to perceive this
once magnificent property.
TIE MAIN LINE OF FIGHT.
According to the allegations Of the
contestants, who. in the action, have
been Mrs. Lucy Goodspsed, daughter Of
the testatrix, and the two children OF
Charles A. Pratt, deceased, it was the
heavy ehrinkage in land values that
has been the indirect cause OF all the
litigation. To provide against certain
requests being reduced pro rata, as
might have been the case. four pages Of
the will executed by Annie A. Pratt In
1881, were Withdrawn. These referred
to the requests OF $3.50, 900 TO each OF the
two children. The Mansfield legacies,
aggregating $170, 900, still remained in
tact.
In 1884 Mrs. Pratt drew up another
will, revoking the one OF 1881, but this
document. it was claimed, had mysteri.
ously disappeared. The Mansfield heirs
commended that codicil, drawn by Mrs.
Pratt in 1885, and attached to the will
OF 1881, revived that document, even If
there had been another one made in
1884, and that will, with its pages with
drawn and others interpolated. has been
the leRal bone OF contention throughout
the case. This codicil. contestants
claimed, was . forgery perpetrated for
the purpose OF defeating the wishes OF
the decedent, but that even II authentic
IL would etill be invalid, for the reason
that Mrs. Pratt was OF unsound mind at
the time 1t is purported to have been
drawn.
The contradictions, charges and coun-
ter-chsrges bristled throughout the case,
and in come instances were OF an as-
founding character. With these the jury
had to deal in the seclueion of the Jury
room.
One Of the main points brought out
by Mr.. Hanlon during HE argument,
which lasted nearly three DAYS, was that
the original will contained IA pages, 90
per the certificate added to the end of
1t, that four pages were taken out and
three in lieu inserted, reducing the IS
sections of the will to IL. and that the
two eliminated sections gave to Lucy
Goodspeeu $500 and to the son,
Charles Pratt, $259,000; that the will
was changed again by taking out three
pages and inserting two, SO that il today
contains only II pages, and the number.
ing OF tho sections OF the will was again
changed. Mr.. Hanlon laid eloquent
emphasis on the failure Of Anah Mans
field and Louisa Cross to take the stand
and subject themselves to q cross-ex-
animation ON their lettors which con-
testants held, but which could not be
brought before the jury until they had
taken the stand. Mr.. Chapman and
Mr.. White, for the contestants, took .
hrm ground on the antedating and for-
gerry OF the codicil.
THE SPECIAL ISSUES.
The 81 interrogatories submitted to
the Jury covered, practically, the entire
case. In arriving ct decision no less
than HOO ballots were taken. with the
following result:
AnterrogatoIy No. Twas the instru-
nent beating date April 20, 1881, sub
scribed az the end thereof by the de-
ceased. AnnieA. Pratt? Answer, No.
No. WAS said instrument bearing
date April 20. 1881. subscribed by the
deceased. Annie A. Pratt, in the PRES
snce OF two sttesting witnesses? An.
swsr. No.
No. S.-Did the deceased, Annie A.
Pratt. At the time of signing said instru.
ment. declare to two attesting witnesses
that said instrument was her will? An.
swer, No.
No. Aid two. attssting witnesses
sign their names. as such, at the end Of
said instrument in the presence OF said
deceased, Annie A. Pratt, and at her
request? Answer. No.
No. Sis the instrument bearing