The San Francisco call., 1895-10-16

truth of certain parts of the evidence read
on the previous day from his deposition.
The afternoon session was devoted en-
t1rely to the testimony of Judge Israel
Lawton, one of the executors of DR.. Mer-
rltts estate. He was in the hands of the
oefense as their witness until court ad-
lourned. This morning Judge Hayne will
subject him to cross-examlnation.
Inc Lawton testimony pictured Mrs
Garcelon as nervous old lady, apparently
somewhat overwhelmed by the enormity
OF the business interests of the Merritt es-
tate, the extent of which she could not
comprehend though she was probably
capable OF understanding it.
Judge Stanly and Stephen W. Purring-
ton were Mrs. Garcelon's only confidants /;
they alone were acquainted with her plans
Tor the distribution of her estate by will
and deed. Mrs. Garcelon, Stephen Pur-
rington and Mrs. Garcelon's physician.
DR.. Agard, are dead. Judge Stanly, the
man who stands accused by the defense of
having used undue influence with Mrs
Garcelon, is the sole surviving witness to
the secret deliberations that resulted in
the creation of the trust. by the provisions
OF which Bowdoin College is to receive
$500, 900 and an Oakland hospital $500, ,0O0
When Warren Olney took the stand he
acknowledged having made an argument
IN an earlier trial in support of the Gar
celon will.
Judge Hayne tried to have Olney estab-
llsh Judge Patterson's relation as an attor-
ney in the case, but Rodgers succeeded
with an objection. Arthur Rodgers was in
turn frustrated in his attempt to prove
Olney's relation as an attorney in Stanly's
employ.
Judge Hayne then said that the plain
tiff's case was all in.
Judge Stanly testified that during the
time from February 19 to April 81, 1891,
hn lrnI
times; that she never consulted with him
prior TO December, 1890; that after Febru-
ary %, 1891, and until April u of that
year he was her attorney and that after
that he advised with her as to her will, but
that he never wrote any business letters
for her, and that about May, 1891, Mrs.
Garcelon advised with him as to her rela-
tions with her former attorney, Judge
Hamilton.
A letter signed by Mrs. Garcelon was
read by the defense. 1t was directed to
Judge Hamilton and was to the effect that
he had been amply compensated for his
part in the settlement of DR.. Merritts
estate, and that Mrs. Garcelon did not pro-
pose to reward him for what she had con-
sldered friendly services subsequent to
that settlement. Judge Stanly had no
recollection of this letter, but when Rodg-
ers submitted a copy of it he recognized
the draft as his own handwriting.
Judge Hayne objected to the filing of this
draft as the defense had adopted a sur
prise to impeach its own witnesses tes-
timony.
Rodgers asked the witness if he con-
versed with Judge Lawton in October or
November, 1890. regarding Mrs. Garcelons
will and if he did not say to him that the
early will was not worth the paper it was
written on, and that Mrs. Garcelon could
not make will.
Hayne objected to the questions, and
Rodgers exclaimed dramatically, while
pointing at the witness:
"lf your Honor please, I submit that
this case hangs on the testimony of that
man; the case of the complainants hangs
upon this witness"
An answer being permitted by the court,
Judge Lawtoh said: st is altogether and
entirely false that had such a converse
ton, but," and he laid stress upon, the
word, 81 do know that Judge Hamilton
brought to my house in Oakland the will
Of August, 1890, and that l remarked that
it was not, in my judgment, worth the
paper 1t was written upon, because of it's
documentary form; but | never said to
any one at any time that Mrs. Garcelon
could not make a will or was not compe-
tent
A mem orandum in the witness's hand
writing directing that copy of the deed
OF trust be placed by Stephen Purrington
in Mrs. Garcelon's tin box was introduced
oy the defense to show that the deed re-
malned where Mrs. Garcelon could have
access to it, and the presumption was
raised that she had been led to believe that
the character of the document was such
that she could alter it at her pleesare
Hayne declared that the deed was most
explicit in its terms, and that it was in
erect as soon as 1t had been signed and
delivered, and could not be recalled no
matter where the paper was Kept. Judge
Stanly explained that Mrs. Garcelon never