The record-union., 1895-03-21
A RIPENING HARVEST FOR JOUR-
NALISM.

JaLneS ". am Qleu ana lett very large
estate. There is a sense in which he left
the world. He certainly did not take
away with him the various hereditaments
which are now matters of legal dispute
in the Probate Court of San Francisco.
Shortly after his death there was offered
for probate a carefully-drawn will. 1t
possessed all the characteristics which
would identify it with the personality
represented by the signature, It was
the result of years of devising.
1t took particular pains to guard
against the appearance of illegitimate
heirs and posthumous wives. It presented
all the evidences of cool, deliberate de-
termination, which was characteristic of
the mans whole life. 1t created a trust.
1t gave and withheld in accordance with
the well-known personal impulses of the
testator. In short, the will offered for
probate was as nearly photograph of
the testator as might be drawn with
pen or delineated with words. No one
who knew James O. Fair in his lifetime
had the slightest reason to doubt the
ing the student of current history
singularly opportune lesson for the pur-
suit of his study, we present the subse-
quent phases of this peculiar contest.
In few days after this will was fl led
with the County Clerk of San Francisco
1t disappeared, and has not since been
seen. 1t was in the custody of the court
because it was still subject of probate.
The Clerks office has not been held to ac-
count by the court for the loss of that doc
ument Shortly after its disappearance
the proponents of the will seemed less
anxious for its production than the oppo-
nents. These opponents intimated that
the stolen will possessed Internal evil
dences of forgery, interpolation and
fraud,.and that its loss was serious in
jury to their case. A little later and in
nmations appear in the San Francisco
Chronicle that subsequent will existed,
and very recently the dramatic denoue-
ment of a subsequent will written in PEN
Gil is enacted in court.
In introducing the will to the attention
OF the court, the attorney for one set of
claimants states that the will was holo-
graphic; had been in the custody of a
lady; was written in her presence and at
her suggestion; that upon the death of
al q nd fhlaD fGo L.,
probate, she became alarmed at the stu
pendous character of the secret she pos
sessed; it was too much for her sensitive
nerves. She Immediately sent the will
out of the county, obviously for the pur-
pose OF getting it out of the jurisdiction of
the court. II did not occur to her that
more effective way would have been 10
have destroyed it. She sent it out of the
county, but into what custody the atJor-
ney failed TO state. He did state, how
ever, that her fears were greatly excited,
but the nature of her fears does not APP
pear to be clear TO the ordinary under
standing. If James g. Fair wrote a will
IN her presence it was his will, and there
is nothing criminal in the act of witness
ing viii. There is no law condemning
the witness of a will to penal servitude.
But the lady who had possession of this
will was very much agitated, exercised
and alarmed. She has since summoned
up nerve enough, however, to tell the re-
markable story.
James g. Fair came to her house-tor
what purpose it is not stated-and in a
burst OF confidence, the basis of which is
left to conjecture, informed her that his
attorneys were bullying him. brow beat
Ing him, coerclng him, and using undue
influence with him. The lady, in a very
cnIvalrous manner, proving herself to be
modern woman, offered her protection.
She said in effect: "Mr. Fair, you are
being abused. and perceive your unpro-
tected condition. 1t is my chief mission
In life to protect helpless millionaires."
Whereupon, she offered the poor help
less bonanza king pencil and paper
there being no ink in the city-and as
sursd him that he could now indulge his