The Washington times. (Washington, D.C.) 1894-1895, 1895-04-14
His Widows Share Suffers a Loss
of $4,000 in Bonds.
CEDAR HILL NOT In DISTRICT
His Estate in Anacostia Was Forty Feet
Across the Other Side Of the Maryland
Line-Mrs. sprague's Answer Alleges
That Lewis Douglass Is Not Fit Person
to Administer the Estate of His Father

All the heirs OF the late Frederick Doug
lass, except his widow, were in court yes
terday and there were numerous interest
ing developments. The will was admit
ted TO probate, and Mrs. Helen Douglass,
the widow, and the oldest SON, Lewis IL.
Douglass, were granted letters of admin |
istration under it, Their bond was fixed |
at $40 900.
1t was found in the course of the dis !
cussion that Mr.. Douglass probably did
not live in the District at all, but forty feet |
the other side of the Maryland line. If
this proves to be true, the State of Mary
land Will come in for a slice of the estate,
under the new law placing a tax on in
beritances.
It was also discovered that while the |
viii gives the widow $40 600 in United |
States registered bonds, there are no |
suueh bonds among his effects, So that
she ia left with SO, GOO cash, to be made !
out Of the property, and her dover Interest
III the real estate.
The calltest was between Mrs. Rosetta ID.
Sprague, wife of Nathan Eprague, who
lives ct Takoma Park, and tine other heirs,
Mrs. Douglass, Lewis II. and Charles Doug
laGs, aud the Son or Frederick Douglass,
J.
II. Thomas aud W. p. Williamson, the others
by John Rdout.
MRS. SPRAGUE's ANSWER
The first step in yesterdays proceed
ings was the filing of papers These were
Mrs. Sprague's answer to the petition of
Mrs. Douglass and Lewis Douglass for
letters Of administration and the assent
of Charles Douglass to their petition. /
The answer sets forth that Lewis Douglass
is an unfit person to have the care OF the
eatate. Further on in the statement he
has finally furnished, there are many
items TO be criticised.
He names $3.50 duefrom hiEselffor which
there is no security, nor as far as known,
isthere any evidence OF the debt or its amount
except his own statement. Alexander
Davisis debited with $3.50 when the records
of the District show that he borrowed $500
on Dec. 5, 1894, for three years at per
cent. The records Sleo show leans to Nary
Booker, $3.50, Elizabeth Baldwin, $500,
Adeline Marshall, $3oe and 81 700, all not
mentioned at all in the list furnished by him.
Accompanyin gthe answer is an affidavit
by o. B. Hollam, the attorney or No. oO4
c street southeast Mr.. Hollam says that
Mr. Linger owsd tho estate $1,000 and
Lewis Douglass came to him as Nr. Linger's
| agent to collect it.
HeUeclincd TO pay till Doug lass could show
some authority TO collect for the estate.
Douglass was Offended and said that he had
accommodated Linger go often in waiting
| for the Interest that he thought ii singular
| there should be any kick made over his
| authority to collect the money. Mr.. Hollam,
| however, still declined tepay although Mr..
! Lingcr had the money aud was desirious TO
| get rid of paying interest.
On these facts Mrs. Sprague asked that
| herstepmethers and brotherbe notappoiuted.
Nr. Thomas, after the papers were filed,
made an argument for Mrs. Sprs que. Mr..
Thomas said his client would net object
TO the appointment OF Mrs. Douglass,
but objected TO Lewis
BAD BUSINESS METHOD.
Mr. Thomas said no charge OF wrong
intent was made, but bad business meth
ods The court had discretion and ought
to appoint Mrs Douglass or some out
slider
The court certainly has discretion in
the matter" said Judge Haguer. THE
Law directs that preference shall be given
to certain persons but II does not require
the court to appoint q bowling lunatic
OF any other manifestly improper person.
] should not do it at all events, if law does
so require But 1 think yot have not
made out your case De you wish an
order for plenary authority to take testi-
mony in the case? 1t Will spend some
body's meney."
Mr. Ridout said his clients denied the
charges OF bad management.
AtthispointB. z. Messer andD. L. itcher,
both OF AnaCoStia, witnesses to the VIII,
came in and were sworn to preve itsgenuine-
ness. Both recognized their signatures,
but at first said they remembered nothing
at all of signing the instrument.
They finally recalled that they had been
sent for to come 10 Mr.. Douglass house,
and wrote their names 10 paTer. They
did not remember certainly that he told
them il was his will, nor that he said the
signature near their own was his sigma
ture 1t was in 1856, this paper said, but
they could not be sure of the time within
several years.
JUDGE HAGNER's STORY.
Judge Hagner interposed that he had
known many similar instances OF forget
fulness. One instance was OF two Wash
fngton lawyers who were summoned to
Leesburg as witnesses to a win. One was
sure he had been a witness, the other did
not remember a thing about it. When they
arrived, they found the first had never be-
fore heard of the will, while the man who
remembered nothing OF the instrument had
been the attorney to draw itup.
After consultation with Mr.. and Mrs.
Sprague their attorneys said they would
not ask the taking of testimony.
Judge Hsgner at ence appointed Mrs
Douglass and Lewis to administer. In
doing so he remarked that it was an inter-
esting cane, presenting the problems OF
the color line and step-mother
Mrs. Sprague's counsel asked that bond
be fixed at $50 GOO, as the personality
ameuated, by the admission of all, to
1 10000, but Judge Hagner said $40 600
would be enough.
After the parties had passed into the
corridor there was very animated dis
cussion that appeared to some of the
spectators likely to end in fisticuff.
| 1t was between Lewis Douglass and Mr..
| Eprague Douglass was heard to say
afterward, "Sprague was going to jump
| into me about it, Mrs. Sprague and
Charles Douglass afterward joined the
trio and they had a long talk.
-