The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-17

were legatees under the first, or "Goodfel-
low. will " the first for $250.000 and the
latter for $4,000. They alleged that the
will dated September 81, 1894, and the first
filed, was the last will, and that they were
informed and believed the writing under
date of September "a, 1894 was not written,
dated or signed by James G. Fair, or exc
cuted by him in any manner whatever.
Mrs. Crothers is one of the special ad
illustrators of the estate, and is named as
one of the executors in each Will, and both
contestants are legatees under both the
"Craven" and the "Goodfellow.' wills.
Ex-Justice Van r. Paterson called the at
tention of the court to the fact that con-
tract had been fled and, as the representa-
tive of the minor heirs, asked leave to file a
similar contract.
81 contend, !" he said, "that this so-called
Photographic will, dated September "a,
1894, is not the will of James &. Fair We
merely allege that Fair never wrote the
will. We suppose, therefore, the applica-
ton of DR.. Marc Livingston for special let
tiers of administration, as we'll as the petit
ton for the probatesof this document, Call
not now be taken up" Judge Paterson
then explained the nature of the contest
which he filed, and which he said was en-
tirely similar to that of John A. Percy,
representing Iu6 uISI COI1btsb 1ltu
Reuben H. Lloyd called attention to the
fact that on March 81 1895, the court ap-
pointed Herman Oelrichs guardian ad Item
of his son, Herman Oelrichs Jr., and, there
fore, he said, the Judge cannot appear for
him.
In reply Judge Paterson said: "We shall
claim that the father is too interested a
party to act as his sons guardian in this
proceeding. If his wife, who claims under
this will, should die, he would receive
under the law half of her interest. We
think 1t is the right and duty of this court
to see that some disinterested person is
chosen to represent this minor.
Judge Slack said he would hear argu-
ments on this point on April 26.
William M. Pierson for the "Good-
fellow" will presented statement on the
part of James Angus and Thomas L.
Crothers, who are mentioned as executors
in both wills. The statement was to the
effect that they knew nothing of the Craven
will until after it was filed. They had no
desire to challenge its authenticity, al
though they had petitioned for probate of
the first or stolen will and they desired it to
be understood that in the event of the
Craven Wills being adjudged the last tes-
lament of the deceased they would consent
to act as executors. Their purpose is to
occupy a neutral position, so that they
may act as executors, no matter what may
be the result of the litigation. ''Now, if it
please the court" said Mr.. Pierson, 1--WE
are ready to proceed with the proof of the
will dated September q, 1884,
This brought Charles II. Wheeler, the
champion of the 'fCraven" will, to his
feet He said that later writing than
that of September q had been filed. 1t
was dated on September "a, 1894, and was,
he said, the last will of James G.. Fair.
While IL stood, he continued, there was
but one will before the court, namely, the
Photographic will, and it was that which
should be admitted to probate.
Mr.. Pierson quoted from the Code of
Civil Procedure to show to the court that
his will and his alone should prevail.
"Under the Ecode,' he said, "a will may
be proved upon the testimony of one of the
subscribing witnesses. The filing of the
properly authenticated will of September
u made it necessary for any one who
wished to contest the same to file a contest
in writing. The proponents of the So
called Photographic will have not done this,
and their rights, if they ever had any, have
lapsed."
In this position Mr. Pierson was sup
ported by his partner, Mr.. Mitchell, and
by Garrett McEnerney, the attorney for
Executor Goodfellow, named in the first
will.
Judge Slack said that he wished enlight-
eminent upon this point, and asked whether
it would be more satisfactory to counsel to
submit briefs or to be heard orally.
Attorney Wheeler thought he would pre-
fer to be heard, and the hearing of the
petition for the probate of each will was
set for Friday next at 2 P. NJ.
1--WE ask that all rights to object to any
OF the rulings are still reserved, said Rus