The San Francisco call., 1895-12-22

would be the natural recipients" and this en-
tire disposition of property, including the
question it, all obtained from the aged lady
under the veil of the most complete secrecy, by
these two persons occupying such conhden:lal
relation with her, no other human being
advising or consulting or communicating witt
her in regard to 1t. or being told by her thai
she understood 1t or any part OF 1t or that !,
was her wish.
And during all the time covered by the
transactions, and long before, and afterward
till she died, this Stephen w. Purington lived
in her house, and this John A. Stanly lived
only across the street and in sight OF hel
windows.
Mr.. Philbrook says that Purington drove
away Fred Merritt when he went to see
Mrs. Garcelon when DR.. Merritt died and
would never let either of the two boys
communicate with her afterward, and that
Judge Stanly had turned her mind against
Judge Israel Lawton and Judge Noble
Hamilton.
In the document there is copy in type
of letter said to have been written in
pencil draft to Judge Noble Hamilton by
Judge Stanly for Mrs. Garcelon. The
object of this is to demonstrate that Judge
Stanly made false statement when he
swore that he did not write the commune
cation. Mr.. PhilDrook refers also to Judge
Stanly's false, vile and infamous insinu-
ations" against his client, Judge Lawton,
and appeals to Mr.. Foote'S testimony In
this respect. And though Judge Lawton
did not suspect it," Mr.. Philbrook's words
are, "she was poisoned (meaning in mind)
against him. -
The $125,000 compromise with the two
boys, Fred and James, is touched upon at
some length; also Mrs. Garcelon's will,
"ieaving all her property to Stephen w.
Purington," in the hope Purington would
make disposition OF the estate as her
deceased brother had wished and in an
appendix Judge Stanly is made to say, in
italics, that both the request signed by
Harry p. Merritt for the commencement
OF the suit and his reply were written by
Judge Stanlv himself. Just before the ap-
pendix letter from Stanly to M. q. Blake
is copied to show Judge Stanly's motive
in having the litigation begun.
Summed up, Mr.. Philbrook's argument
in the paper is that the conveyances in
question are fraud upon and viola
ton by indirection of section 1913 of the
void any attempt of person to give by
will more than one-third of his estate to
charitable uses; that the widow of DR..
Seward Garcelon did not have the proper
mental capacity to make the alleged con-
yeyances; that the conveyances were pro-
cured by undue influence and fraud, and,
lastly, doubt is ventured that Mrs.
Garcelon ever delivered the papers in
question. The courts jurisdiction is chal-
lehged also.
''If the court had jurisdiction of the
suit, Mr.. Philbrook starts out, "the ques-
ton upon the merits would be whether
decree could be given against James F.
Merritt, Catherine M. Garcelon's next OF
kin. and against Harry P. Merritt, her re-
siduary devisee and legatee. and against
George w. Reed, her administrator. de-
claring valid deed of real estate of the
sona % propeptv Of au the value 81 500 and
a declaration of trust, all being parts of
one instrument and embracing all her
property, except $4,000, alleged to have
been made by her April 81, 1891, to John
A. Stanly, her attorney-at-law and legal
adviser, and Stephen W. Purington, her
general business manager and agent, re-
siding in her house."