The San Francisco call., 1895-05-18

with completely with one Richard T.
in not returning any account of this prop
erty.
Osborn died intestate. and his widow
was granted community interest in the
estate. Mercer was appointed admins
traitor on the recommendation of Knox,
and stated that the estate consisted of a
one-third interest in quicksilver mine in
Napa County and one-quarter interest in
an sntimony mine in San Benito County,
both interests being valued at $1,000.
Afterward the $1,000 on life insurance
policy held by Osborn was paid to Mercer.
On December 4, 1894, an accounting was
filed by the administrator and was settled
by the court, although the widow says she
did not hear of it until January IL, 1895.
This accounting estimated the estate at
$4,000, consisting of the policy and uncer-
tain mining interests.
Mrs. Osborn in her petition states that
Knox and his wife paid her a monthly
family allowance, stating that it was out OF
their own funds and as charity, there be-
ing nothing in the estate, while all the
while she says there was this $4,000 ac-
counted for and the half-interest in the
100000 mines unaccounted for.
On February last she had asked for the
removal OF the administrator, but her peti-
ton was denied. although MERGERS bond
was raised to $4,000 from $4,000.
The property claimed by Mrs. Osborn as
partly owned by her is described as fol-
lows:
The mining property known as the Manhat.
tan or Porphyry mine, and which is the prom
cry OF the ex partnership of Knox & Osborn
Dy Unled states patent, of great value more
than 100000; One-quarter of q quarter sec.
ton OF land in Lake County.
The petitioner is also informed that there
are other properties, mines and lands in
Napa. Lake, Yolo, San Benito and Nevada
counties belonging to the estate, which she
is having investigated, as well as the pro-
ceeds OF the copartnership by the sale of
merchandise and several thousand TASKS of
quicksilver from the Manhattan mine.
1t also appears that there has been an
endeavor to settle the indebtedness. Adj
ministrator Mercer sued Knox for an ac-
counting of the copartnership affair. and
Knox admitted that the copartnershin
had existed, but denied that there was anv
balance due Osborn. On the other hand
he said, the firm owed SEC, 900, and Osborn
or his estate owed him personally S35. 600
for which he held an assignment on the
Osborn mining interests as collateral Sc.
curity. Mrs. Osborn admits that Admin.
istrator Mercer has acknowledged this
debt, but declares that the claim is false
and the result of collusion between Knox
and Mercer.
She blames Knox more than Mercer.
Knox, she says, has been her sole source OF
information regarding the estate and he
sis dealing unfairly and dishonesty with
said estate and its properties and misrep-
resenting the same to the administrator -
The latter she merely charges with having
''made no effort to discover the true condi,
ton, properties and assets of said estate or
of the proofs necessary for fair and lust
determination of the issues involved She
charges him accordingly with ssgross
neglect to the extent of establishing his
utter incompetency or his completely with
said Knox to its great detriment and loss
and to the utter financial ruin of the peti-
toner, to whose interests and welfare he
seems specially antagonistic in his reckless
inattention or interested opposition to the
interests of the trust"
Mercer, says the petitioner, is not to be
trusted to press the proceedings against
Knox, and for that reason she asks for the