The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-03
DR.. BALDWIN OBJECTS
He Will Contest the Will of His
Dead Wife, Lena Baldwin.
THE CASE TO BE HEARD HERE.
Property wElIcf Away Which He Al
leges Belonged I'd Him-Two wills
TO Be Presented.

II locks very much as though DR.. Aaron
Baldwin. OF Washington City. will not
come into the possession OF the estate lief.
by his wife. Lena Shay Baldwin VINO died
in this city in April. 1874 for the United
States supreme court has just put another
obstacle In his way which transfers the
fight over the will from the courts OF the
District Of Columbia. where DR.. Baldwin
was anxious 10 keep IL. TO the superior
court OF this county. The supreme court
has denied his applica ton for a writ OF
prohibition 50 prevent the enforcement OF
an order made by Judge Osborn some
time ago. In which DIR. Baldwin vas or
dered to produce in the King county supe-
rioF court a viii which his wife executed
while In Seattle. and in which she left
most OF her fortune TO her brother, A. X
Shay. and her sister. Jennie L. Shay, both
of whom reside in this city. Attorney
James y. Howe. OF Donworth q Howe,
counsel for the Shays. admitted yesterday
that the viii was now en- route from
Washington City TO Seattle and would ar
rive here most any day.
IL il expected that Dir. Baldwin will ar
rive soon after the will and fight the case
in the. highest courts, regardless OF this
little paragraph which appears in the Will
Mrs Baldwin left:
Il have tried TO make this. my last will.
as just and fair 20 nay dear husband as
possible and hope II may meet his fun ap-
proha Ion"
The will certainly does not meet with
Or. Baldwin's appreciation. for he alleges
that in il his wife disposed OF property to
her brother and sister which in reality be-
longs TO him. and which she had years
ago agreed 10 will TO him. In fact DR..
Baldwin has in his possession viii which
his wife executed some years after their
marriage and In which he il made her
IL. 3xx-fr
like to have admitted 10 probate, but the
Shays contend that il Is worthless. be-
cause its provisions were revoked by the
subsequent will.
DR. and Mrs. Baldwin lived In Washing
ton City for number OF years and DIR.
Baldwin at present makes his home there.
He is wealthy and has quite social
standing in the community. Mrs. Baldwin
came to Seattle several years ago. on ac-
Count of poor health. and made her home
for time with the Shays. who live at
Eleventh and Howell streets. Dr. Bald
win came too.
Mrs Baldwin died April 1s. 1894. Soon
after her death DR.. Baldwin returned to
Washington City, and in the month Of
November. 1894. the Shays came into court
and asked that DR.. Baldwin be compelled
to produce a will left by Mrs. Baldwin,
which was dated August 6. 1892, in which
she disposed of her estate. The Shays
stated that In the will DR.. Baldwin had
been made executor without bonds. but
he had failed TO come forward and say
whether or not he would accept; neither
had he produced the will The Shays
stated further in their petition the dispo-
sition which Mrs. Baldwin had made of
her estate. She had left Mrs. Shay her
residence al 1876 Eleventh street Wash
ingto City, a quantity of jewelry. includ-
ing several diamonds. and $500 out of the
proceeds OF sale of real estate situated
at Mount Vernon. u. C. Mrs. Shay was
also left The old family furniture that
came from the old home in Alexandria
TO her beloved husband Mrs. Bald
win left all other property, both real and
personal. with a request that upon his
death he leave half of it TO the deceased's
brother. \. X. shay.
Judge Osborn issued an order that the
will be produced by Dir. Baldwin. who
had IN the meantime proceeded TO Wash
ington City. where he. too. got the courts
interested i'm the subject of will. He had
two OF them The one was that executed
by his wife In 1882 in which she made the
Shays her principal heirs. and the other
was that executed back in January, 1915,
and In which all OF the property was left
10 the husband. DIR. Baldwin endeavored
10 have the 1879 viii filed. taking the po-
sitton that the 1892 viii was not prop
pdlv executed document Tor the reason
that II only had two witnesses. whereas
the laws of the District OF Columbia re-
aulred three witnesses. In taking this
position DR.. Baldwin of course maintained
that he was and his wife had been a
resident OF the District.
When a copy OF Judge Osborn's order
was served upon DR. Baldwin. he went
into the supreme cour! and tried 10 get
the writ OF prohibition which would have
prevented the enforcement OF the order,
but news from Washington city an
| nounces that 10 has been denied and that
Dr. Baldwin has been ordered 10 send
the 1892 will back 10 Seattle.
The action Of the supreme court makes
the King county court the center OF the
fight for Mrs. Baldwin's fortune. The
Shays. through their counsel. say that
Mrs Baldwin. having resided here two
wears was A resident of Seattle. and her
viii having been made under the laws
] OF the state OF Washington, is in no way
effected ny the laws OF the District OF
| Columbia The will. they claim. should
| never have been taken ont OF the state
! by pr Baldwin. who. IL Is said. also car
| ried of his wile's Jewelry, which was
| left 10 Mrs. Shay
| The final possession OF the property VIII
qulie likely depend upon the question OF
| Mrs. Bal3win's legal residence.
| The Shays say that even Dr. Baldwin Is
| a resident of this city, and In support OF
| the statement produce an AFFIDAVIT from
DEPUTY city clerk Coryell 70 the effect
/ that Or. BALDWIN Was a registered voter
/ RI the last election. HIS place Of residence
| at the time being 1907 Tenth street.