The San Francisco call., 1895-08-01
WOULD BREAK THE WILL.
Heirs of the Late Ellen Gal
Iagher Very Much Dis
satisfied.
RESORT TO LEGAL MEASURES.
Petition Asking for Revocation Of
Probate Proceedings Filed In
the Superior Court.

A petition was filed yesterday in the
Superior Court by Henley & Costello, at
torneys, on behalf of the heirs of the late
Ellen Gallagher, who died in this City on
April S, 1895, asking that the court decree
establishing a certain document as the last
will of deceased be revoked and that let
ters of administration of the estate be is
sued to Peter Collins, one OF the lawful
heirs of deceased, or some other person
competent to administer upon the estate.
The petitioners are: James McCallum,
now residing in Ireland, q brother of the
deceased; James, Hannah and Rosanna
Collins and Margaret Dowds, all of Phila-
delphia children Of a sister of deceased.
The circumstances leading up to the
filing of the petition yesterday as
set forth therein are as follows: Thomas
Gallagher died in San Francisco on
January ., 1892, leaving an estate val
ued at $183 489. The share of his surviving
wife IN the estate amounted. according to
its appraised value, TO $146 1872 50. The
husband left will, and, after due process
of law, the estate vas distributed and his
affairs wound up. One of the executors
of this will was Rev. Dennis Nugent.
On April s, 1895, the Widow Gallagher
passed away, leaving will the provisions
of which were in substance as follows:
To Mary b. Russell of ST. Mary's Hos
pital, $1,000, interest on the same to be paid
to a brother Of deceased, James McCallum
of Ireland, and at his death the principal
to revert to Mrs. Russell. To Peter Collins
of Philadelphia, a nephew, $500. To
James Collins, Margaret Dowds, Rosanna
Collins and Hannah Collins, children of a
deceased sister, $500 each, To Mother
Mary B. Russell OF st. Mary's Hospital,
$1,000, the interest 10 be paid to a cousin,
Rosanna Reilly of San Francisco. To the
Superior of the Franciscan Fathers, located
on Golden Gate avenue, San Francisco,
$780,
All the rest, residue and remainder of
the estate was bequeathed to st. Bernards
conference of the St. Vincent de Paul So
cietv of San Francisco. Rev. d. Nugent,
pastor of St. Roses Church, was appointed
executor, without bonds. Between the
time of the distribution of her husbands
estate and her own demise, Mrs. Gallagher
disposed of considerable property, as
shown by the records in the Recorders
office.
On December 20, 1894, she decided to J.
0. Hirschfelder property valued ut $4,000,
situated at 213 and 215 Kearny street, the
witness being Dennis 'Nugent and the
consideration $40.
The second conveyance was from Ellen
Gallagher to Christopher a. Mulvey, the
deed being dated September ~, 1898, and
the witness John f. Lyons. The deed was
acknowledged September %, 1893, before a
notary public. The consideration was
Ellen Gallagher to Patrick w. Riordan,
the deed being dated April 3, 1895. and the
consideration stated $40. The property
was appraised at $50, ,500 The fourth con-
veyance was from Ellen Gallagher to Mar
garet r. Nugenu by deed dated Decem-
Der 10, 1898, acknowledged January 5, 1894,
and recorded April IL, 1895, the stated con-
sideraton being $40. The property was
situated on Harrison street and was APP
praised at $1,000.
The petition flied yesterday in the Supe-
rior Court by Henley & Costello alleges
various acts OF undue influence claimed to
have been practiced upon Ellen Gallagher
to induce her to MAKE the will sought to be
set aside IN this action, and concludes with
the prayer that the will be revoked.
Father Nugent seemed very much sur
prised when Informed last evening at his
residence on Brannan street that the petit
ton had been filed during the day by At
torneys Henley and Costello. II had no
idea" said he, in discussing the matter,
that Henley had the remotest intention
of taking the case into court. 1t s true
that he threatened to do so when | refused
to answer certain impudent questions
which he put to me, relative to the estate
of Mrs. Gallagher, but | set the whole
thing on the basis of the old adage about a
barking dog, etc.
'In other words, l thought he was
making what you might call bluff
Henley is given to that sort of thing, as
everybody knows.
$50 he has really filed the petition, has
he? Well, so be it, No, will not 20 into
details | do not believe in trying these
cases in the newspapers. It's only little
family jar and Will be settled in due time.
Mrs. Gallagher was of sound mind to
the day of her death. Most of her prop
erty was disposed of during her lifetime
by gift sale, transfer, etc. The tritle that
was left to the church at the time of her
death need cause no one alarm. 1t was
only trihe.
Surely she had right to dispose of the
property as she saw bit. 1t was her hus-
bands desire at the time of his death that
the bulk of his property should go to the
chdrch when the widow should no longer
live to enjoy it.
"Is it true that Henley agreed not to file
this petition if you would make full ex-
planation relative to the disposition of
certain moneys derived from property dur
ing Mrs. Gallagher's Iifetime?" was asked.
Yes, that is correct. / refused to make
any ca ApldlldtAol Whatever pecdliSe 90 NOT
recognize his right to ask me questions
about the estate How would that poor
dead lady, Mrs. Gallagher feel if she knew
that Henley had called me down to his
office to ask me series of impudent uues-
tions as to how | had fulfilled my sacred
trust as executor of her estate? What
right has he to ask me questions? This
woman knew what she was about: you may
depend upon that.
ut will all come out at the proper time
AS | have said, this woman was in her
right mind when she disposed of her
possessions. There was no undue iniu-
ence. 1t was the intention of both Mr..
and Mrs. Gallagher that the bulk OF their
nronerfv shoul1 po tn the church