The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-27

Hall was appointed in his place. The
separate items objected to show, according
to the decision of the referee, that the con-
testant found fault with every item in the
account which related to presents that she
had made to her intimate friends and
which she seeks to repudiate. These are
allowed. Then she also claims in bills for
clothing that were furnished to her and
charged to the estate that she never re-
ceived the clothing, thus casting an asper-
sion on her father, which is promptly re-
moved by the referee. In this latter class
Is bill for $3S IL and one for $21 so.
Another item objected to is one of 81 for
smilax. 1t appears tina: when Mr.. Plumb
returned to England IN May, 1887, he took
with him smilax plants to the value OF 81,
which were to be worn for decorative pur-
poses at the Norfolk house. The referee,
III allowing this item, says that the smilax
plant is not a native of England and is
rarely grown there except in private con-
ServatorleS and then as curiosity. The
plants were set out and grown in the ver-
anda of the Norfolk house.
One of the most remarkable contested
items in the bill is one for 81 so. 1t appears
IN bill for 1894 81, and the item for So so
for bottle of gin is the only disputed one
in the bill. 1t appears from the testimony
of this item, which cost over 5000 to take,
that the bottle of gin in dispute was sent
to Lieutenant Hunt, one of the officers of
the Greedy expedition to the Arctic regions.
He was son-in-law of Adiutant-General
Drum, and his wife was an intimate friend
of Miss Plumb. When he returned from
hn -. ~
and soon died from the effects of the ex-
posture. During his illness his physicians
said that he must have stimulating bever-
ages and this bottle of gin was sent to him
by the father at the request of the contest
ant and while Lieutenant Hunt was dying
in Washington. She disputed the item, as
she claimed that she had never received
the gin and that, therefore, she could not
be charged with it.
The iteIh was allowed, and another dis
'puted item in a bill of florist for 81 so
Miss Plumb says she never got any fow-
ers. 1t appears that these were flowers
sent on the occasion of the funeral of her
aunt, Mrs. Henry Yale of 50 West Thirty
ninth street. The bill was for SO, but Mr..
Plumb stood half of the expense. 1t was
shown that the contestant had ordered the
flowers.
One of the contested items is a bill of
Sinclair Bros Bath Hotel, for $516 OF.
There is a story behind this item. The
Misses Plumb were friends of the daugh-
tiers of Judge Calvin Pratt of Brooklyn,
and travelled with them in Europe. 1t
was understood that Judge Pratt was to
pay the expenses of his daughters while
thpU fhUc tpau NIT he
Plumb, and bills were sent to the Judge
by Mr.. Plumb at the formers request OF
this above bill $3.50 was paid to the estate
by Judge Pratt as his daughters share of
the expenses, so that only $266 was charged
to the estate. This bill was for the balcony
that had been hired at the hotel in ques-
ton on June 20, 1887.
At the time of the Queens jubilee Miss
Plumb and her father, with party invited
by her, went from Southampton to Lon
don on June 20, 1887, to observe the parade
and take part in the festivities connected
with the Queens jubilee The party con-
sisted of Miss Marie jeanette Plumb and
maid; Sarah Lenita Plumb and her friend.
Miss Hall; General and Mrs. Garry; the
two Misses Garry; Major General Farmer:
Mr.. and Mrs. Brinsmade the London
banker of the Pratt family, and the two
Misses Pratt, daughters of Judge Pratt of
Brooklyn.
TIE balcony, holding sixteen people, was
secured at the Bath Hotel and dinner was
served in the room adjoining.
The referee says that the expenditure, in
view of the occasion, the situation of the
parties, the amount of the estate and the
manner of living of the family, was proper
and is allowed. Bills aggregating $S17 for
wines, liquors and cigars are challenged by
the contestant, but the referee finds that
Miss Plumb never drank croton water, but
always table waters and ginger apolli-
naris, etc, and that most of the wines were
consumed by Richard J. Porter, a servant
of the family, who was discharged for
drunkenness in 1886. The referee says that
he consumed all the gin and most of the
brandy. What he did not consume was
used in the entertainment of the friends of
the family. He says that Mr.. Plumb used
some, but not habitually. The expendi.
ture is allowed.
Judge Hall, in his report, also has the
following to say of the father and the
daughters. In reference to the former, he
says: "He never drank to excess, and
his drinking was confined to the
home and the table, which has always
been bountifully supplied. He never
gambled or associated with those who do.
He never allowed his daughters to meet
any man or woman except of unblemished
reputation, and never associated with
questionable persons himself In fact he
led the life of a gentleman, feeling the
weight of responsibility cast upon him to
bring up and educate his children in a
manner to do justice to their antecedents. -
The referee also says: 'The correspond
ence that has been put in evidence shows
conclusively that the daughters, Marie
and Sarah, had their fathers love as their
dearest possession; they could not bear to
be separated from him even for short
period of time. This continued, and the
urgent desire is expressed to him in letters
for his return to them and their home
which they considered empty without him !;
in short, it would be almost impossible to
conceive a stronger or more deep-seated
love and devotion than is displayed by
this petitioner in her letters to her father.
"If the contestant is to be believed,
their seeming love and devotion was n hol-