The morning call., 1895-01-11
REPRESENTING THE MINORS.
4 Motion Made to Quasll and Set
Aside Citations.
IT is OPPOSED BY ATTORNEY DELMiS.
The Court Denies the Motion and the
Hearing Is Continued After Con.
siderable Argument.

SAN JOSE, Jan. 10.--There was sur
prise in the Barron will contest this morn
ing. It was something that the contest
ants had not prepared themselves for. and
so surprised were the attorneys for the
contestants that Mr.. Delmas ventured 10
return an expression of surprise that the
counsel opposing had not represented
their case in their answers as they now
commended they appeared in court.
Mr.. Lieb submitted at the outset that
Judge John CARRIER, his associate counsel.
should be appointed attorney for the
minor children. Eva and Rose Barron. and
after some slight objection to the phrase
ology of the order the appointment was
made.
"Now," said Mr.. Lieb. "since Mr.. Gar
Der represents the minors as their aLtor-
ney, he will take care of Them" and Mr..
CARRIER offered the bombshell when he
moved to quash and set aside the citations.
the services and the returns. In support
of his motion be presented his points, the
essential ones of which were that the eita-
ton first issued was not served on the
guardian of the children; the citation
Issued January was not issued as re-
CURED by law; that it was not issued 10 all
the legatees. devisees and executors. Mr..
CARRIER in his argument eontended that the
original citation purporting to be issued
to the guardian was void, as there
was no guardian. and that the
second was issued TO the infants
and the minors, and not to their
guardian. and that it is, therefore, void
He also held that the court has no right to
issue the citation in piecemeal. 1t should
be Issued at the time of filing the contest.
which must be begun within one year.
he advised counsel to look upon the face
of the will and serve The proper parties,
and confine themselves to issuing the cita-
tion upon the filing Of the petition of
revocation.
In replying Mr.. Delmas stated that if
Mr.. CARRIERS views we're correct, it was
within the power of Eva Rose Barron to
prevent the contest, as she appeared both
in the role of guardian and executrix.
"All that she has 10 do" said he, us to
refuse to qualify as guardian, which APP
pointment she received under the will, and
thereby do what has been attempted to be
done in the way of preventing this con-
test Mrs. Barron appears in the will in
capacity as devisee i'll her indi-
vidual right. as executrix. as trustee of the
and as guardian of the children.
She was so cited, and she came into court
in her answer signed by Messrs. McKins-
try. Lieb and Gill, as guardian, and / hope
| do not ssume that they represented she
was the guardian and say now that she is
not"
1--WE did not say that she was the guar
diam" said Mr.. Lieb.
II say" added Mr.. Delmas. shat when
OF the standing of these gentle
men come into court and say party In
their case appears as guardian. say eoun-
sci on the other SIDE may be pardoned if
they believe that statement"
Mr.. Delmas continued the argument and
the court finally ruled denying the motion
TO quash. Exceptions were taken.
Mr.. CARRIER then asked for continuance,
as it was necessary for minors TO be rep
resented at the taking of dispositions,
which will now have to be done over
again. There are 5000 pages of type
written testimony of this nature to be Of
fered.
Delmas strongly opposed continuance,
but it was granted until January %, at
which time new jury will be secured.