The San Francisco call., 1895-10-11

for the defendants, began the reading ot
the deposition of John A. Stanley, and
had reached the fiftieth page of the
closely typewriter document when court
adjourned at O'Clock.
The case will be continued next Monday
morning at 10 o'clock, when the reading oil
the remaining 200 pages of the deposition
will be resumed.
Mrs. Garcelon, sister of the late DIR. Sam
uel Merritt, inherited her brothers prop
erty, valued at something over a million
and half and at her death she left large
amounts to Bowdoin College and 10 pros
pectiye hospital to be founded in Oakland
and named after her brother the hospital
idea having originated with DR.. Merritt.
James ?. and Frederick A. Merritt.
nephews of DR.. Merritt, were previously
provided for by Mrs Garcelon, who wished
to forestall legal contest; she gave them
$125, ,000 in cash and property valued at
$685., $50 in satisfaction of their claims as
relatives of DR.. Merritt, who had provided
in his will that they should each receive
$500 a month for ten years, but he gave
them no property He left the whole OF
his possessions to his sister.
BoWdoin College and Mrs. Garcelon' s
numerous heirs are now trying to have the
court enioin the Merritt nephews and the
Garcelon trustees from interfering with
the trust and the distribution of the estate.
Attorney Arthur Rodgers offered gen
eral objection to the reading of the exhibits
on the ground that this proceeding was
unnecessary. In the main the documents
contained testimony of subscribing wiz
nesses to Mrs. Garcelon's will.
An old letter by Harry P. Merritt to his
attorney. stating that he wished to hand
in his resignation as an executor and have
it acted upon at once by the court, was
read in evidence.
A detailed denial, signed by George W.
Reed, maintained that Mrs. Garcelon was
not weak in mind or in judgment and did
not rely on others at the time of making
her will.
When the argument of Judge Patterson,
maze in the early trial, was offered in evil
dence Rodgers objected seriously and de-
manded that the plaintiffs first prove in
what capacity Judge Patterson made that
speech. Judge Haynes assumption was
that the speech had been made by Judge
Patterson as an attorney for James P. Mer-
ritt, and he said that he wished to show by
it that Harry 2. Merritt bad resigned by
procurement of James P. Merritt.
do men usually aid their enemiesP'
said Judge Hayne; ''here we find his at
torney attacking the will that was the
foundation of Harry P. Merritt's rights"
The deposition of John A. Stanley
Garcelon since 1869 and had lived across
the street from her home in Oakland !;
that after November. 1880, he was more in
innate with her, his friendly relations
prior to that time consisting of occasional
calls at Intervals of several weeks; that
she had consulted HIM as friend as to
the advisability of giving property to the
Merritt nephews. and that he had advised
her to satisfy their claims as relatives in
order that the trust might be free from
contests.
It was John A. Stanley who .subse-
quently at Mrs. Garcelon's request carried
on all the negotiations with Judge Foote,
attorney for the Merritt nephews; and it
was he who drafted the deeds and finally
paid over the $4,000 to the young Msr-
rItts.
Mrs. Garcelon on two occasions told
John A. Stanley that she wanted him to
make her will, for she wished to have it
proof against attacks by DR.. Merritt s
DpphaWs