The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-01

til his return. Then he. found the widow
in quiet possession of all the property and
enjoying herself.
fWho this DR.. Clark is do not know, :"
said Mr.. Rogers. "but hear that he and
my stepmother were very intimate. None
of my fathers relatives in San Jose, San
Francisco and Ohio knew of his death I'M
til / told them,. and they, are very much
surprised, and will demand an investiga-
ton. We will have the body disinterred
and an inquest held"
"It'sa most disgraceful affair" said Mrs.
Rogers last evening. His father always
referred to George as that scoundrel )"
continued she, "and now / am thoroughly
convinced he was right. The last time
saw him was when he came to borrow
money from me, but his father overheard
us talking and positively refused to allow
me to give him cent. From that time to
this have never seen him, although he
has made great amount OF trouble for
me-"
In answer to a number of questions
Mrs. Rogers told the following story:
| 'sDr. Rogers was pioneer. He was here
| in the DAYS of gold,' and afterward went
back East and graduated from medical
college. He was married in the East, but
after he had accumulated some property in
Indiana he and his wife quarreled. He
gave up everything to her and came to
time he established a fair practice and
accumulated few dollars. Then he Sc
cured a divorce from his first wife and
married again.
81 am DR.. Rogers third wife, and I can
state with authority and without fear of
contradiction that when he came back to
California the second time he had not a
cent.
1.-THE whole of this trouble has been pre-
cipitated by Georges attempt to secure
some of the property left by his father.
He has begun action to secure certain lands
and houses owned by his father in Oak
land Berkeley and San Francisco, and be-
cause I have opposed him he threatened
| to raise a scandal that would make me
ashamed to hold up my head. My hus-
band was we'll off, but he was not worth
5000, 900 nor half that amount. In order to
further annoy me this scoundrel has been
going around among my tenants intimi-
dating them.
about the middle of June my husband
was taken sick and he died on July o. He
had been suffering from bronchial con-
sumption for long time and when he took
to his bed he knew his end was not
far off. Dropsy set in and my husband
died. The undertakers could not embalm
him, but l insisted upon the remains being
kept until the oath, and then we buried
him. He was 81 years old.
"As to his relatives not knowing of his
death all can say is that his brother-in-
law, ]. Heinland, and his niece from San
Jose were present when he died."
DIR. Clark, when seen at his offices, 129
O'Farrell street, had very little to saw.
''Dr. Rogers died from dropsy superin.
duced by bronchial consumption, said
he. 81 was called in because he had known
me from the time | was almost baby and
he wanted to have some ono around b;p,
that he knew. There was no hone for him
and he knew it. This talk about the BODY
being exhumed is all rot and no one
knows it better than George Rogers. He
is simply raising hue and cry in order to
draw public attention to the fact that he
is attempting to get portion of his
fathers estate. All l have to say is, lei
him go ahead and he will soon see the
hole in which he will land himself"