St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-19
LATER WILL FOUND
Which Adds q Fresh Sensa-
tion to the Squabble
for
BONANZA KINGS MILLIONS.
Document Which, If Genuine,
Makes the Stolen Will
Worthless.
A HOT CONTEST is CERTAIN
Heirs Evidently Combined in
Favor of the New
Deal.
BONANZA KINGS MILLIONS.
A HOT CONTEST is CERTAIN

SAN FRANCISCO, March 1S.-The
legal souabble over the $40, ,000,0 900 left
by the late bonanza king, James q.
Fair, developed fresh sensation to-
day. What is purported to be later
will than the one previously offered
for probate was introduced in the
case. The will first produced, it will
be remembered, was stolen from the
county clerks Office, and in order
that the document might be pro-,
bated Judge Slack had finally ruled
that certified copy Of the will might
be substituted. Upon the alleged
will introduced today a bitter con-
test will hinge. This new document
purports to be a Photographic will.
1t is written in lead pencil on two
sheets of legal cap paper. 1t was
brought into court securely framed
between two plates of glass, and
was presented by Reuben Lloyd, at
torney for Virginia Fair and Mrs.
Herman Oelrichs, of New York,
daughters Of the deceased. The at
terneys for Charley Fair, their
brother, came into counrt with Mr..
Lloyd, and apparently approved the
proceeding. There is no longer any
doubt that the three children have
eCOMBINED TO FIGHT
for the probate of this latest alleged
will Under it's provision the vast
estate would be divided almost
equally between the two daughters
and Charley, and the distribution
would be made at once. Under the
will previously offered for probate
these children would get only the in
come from the estate during their
term of life, and upon the death of
all of them the estate would be di-
Ivided into three equal parts, one
part going to the children Of Vir-
ginia Fair, unless she die without
issue, when this share would revert
to the children of Mrs. Oelrichs,
and the remaining one-third to the
families of several brothers and sis
ters of the deceased Charles Fairs
recent marriage caused an estrange-
ment between himself and his father,
and he was cut off with a life in
terest in the income of the estate.
His widow would receive nothing.
In other respects the will first pro-
duced and the will produced today are
very similar. In the second will, how
ever, Charles Fair receives a special
bequest of $500,000, to be paid imme>
diately before the distribution of the
estate. MeSSrS. Angus and Crothers
and DR.. Mark Livingston are named
as executors under the second will.
Angus and Crothers are two of four
executors named in the will previously
filed, and which gave the executors
entire control of the estate at fat
salaries during the life of the three
children.
Attorney Lloyd, in presenting this
second alleged will, explained that
according to it's date it was executed
three days later than than the win
previously filed. He said he would
prove that the existence of tn will was
only known to few, and after a lone
search it had been found in the pos,
session of a very estimable lady"
whose name Mr.. Lloyd would not di-
Vulge at present. He stated that she
had not produced it before she had
read of the other will being offered for
probate, and that she supposed it was
a later document than the one held by
her. FURTHER, she had desired to avoid
the publicity. The attorneys for the
executors under the first will intimated
very strongly that they believed this
alleged will to be forgery. Further
probate proceedings were finally con.
tinued until April g.