The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-02-22


cally prepared notice OF contest.
But it was not filed.
The counsel for Charles l.. Fair pre-
scented and was allowed to file a demurrer
to the supplement al petition recently filed
by counsel for the executors. The supple
mental petition, as is known, gave notice
to the court that the true viii of James G.
Fair had been lost: it presented docu-
ment which it declared was copy of the
lost will and offered it for probate instead
of the true will.
1t was to this proceeding that the law
yers representing Charles l.. Fair de-
INJURED. Despite the objection of Carrot
McEnerney that no such proceeding was
known to the law as demurrer to petit
ton for probate OF will the demurrer was
allowed to be filed and as counsel asked
for time in which to prepare argument
in support the court granted it, and set the
day and hour as Saturday of next week at
1880 A. NJ.
So the matter stands just about where it
did in the beginning, so far as the court is
concerned.
But this preliminary fencing and re-
cruiting of eminent lawyers on both sides
give every indication of a pending struggle
of gigantic proportions.
Counsel for Charles L. Fair declare that
the contest will be begun. 1.-THE situation
is exactly as it was two weeks ago." said
Charles Wheeler yesterday, shortly after
the little display in court. 81 said then
that proceedings in contest of the will will
be filed as soon as preliminary matters are
out OF the way, and that statement stands
good. Since we were in court two weeks
ago the other side has introduced this sup
Elemental petition, which took us quite
by surprise, for we understood at that time
~ Mr. -, I:
rection would not be followed. We have
demurred to the supplemental petition,
and whether our demurrer is sustained or
dismissed we will file the contest on the
grounds then presented. We were con-
fronted by an ordinary petition for probate
of will which had been fled and had not
been stolen-the straight everyday case.
Now we are confronted with nondescript
this petition for the probate of a will that
had been filed and not stolen-amended to
cover the case of will filed and afterward
stolen, and an alleged copy presented for
probate. When their position is straight
ened out and made plain by the court then
we will proceed"
The counsel in the case for the contest
with the exception of Reuben H. Lloyd
are all in the employ of Charles L. Fair
Yesterday Mr.. Lloyd, who represents the
daughters of Mr.. Fair, said that his clients
were not contemplating contest
1t has been understood all along that the
contest being determined it would be con-
Quoted in the name of Charles L. Fair.
thus in the event OF failure FORGETTING only
his share, while he would be REIN bursed
from that of his sisters.
The statement Of Mr.. Llovd that the
sisters will not participate in the contest is
taken as refuting this general acceptation
of the situation, and if so it puts Charles l..
Fair in the interesting attitude of risking
all on the cast of this die. For, as is
known, the requests in the will are con-
tingent upon their acceptance by the heirs
without contest.
Mr. Lloyd's statement may mean nothing
more, however, than the ordinary precau-
ton of a cautious attorney in the face OF a
perfect understanding, as has been indi-
Gated, between all the parties, that they
will not figure in the contest-just as it has
been said that they would not.
Mr. Wheeler, being asked how ne under
stood it, said: 81 have understood that
Mr.. Lloyd has said that his clients will not
enter the contest. We have heard nothing
from him in the matter. We would be
very glad to have Mr.. Lloyd and his clients
support us in the case, but if he will not
Mr.. Fair will proceed on his own motion"
Since Mr.. Wheeler, who is the Junior of
the firm of CARRIER, Boalt 81 Bishop, was
added to Knight & Heggerty, Fairs origi-
nal counsel, still another firm, Wilson &
Wilson, have been enlisted. The latter
were represented yesterday by Russell
Wilson.
On the other hand the executors oriei-
nal counsel, Pierson & Mitchell, with Rog-
ers & Paterson, have further strengthened
their forces by the addition of Garrett Nc
Enerney, who some days ago left the firm of
Stanly, Hays, McEnerney d Bradley to en-
ter into partnership with W. s. Goodfellow,
one of the executors of the will and him
self a lawyer. He figures as the personal
counsel of Mr.. Goodfellow. He did all the
talking for the proponents in the little
skirmish of yesterday.
ISong lawyers who are watching the
proceedings the filing of the supplemental
petition is taken as sign that that entire
accord which is expected to prevail among
counsel working toward common end
does not exist within the ranks of the
counsel for the executors.
The perfect uniformity with which doc
tors differ finds its exact opposite in the
case of lawyers employed upon the same
side OF case. 1t is almost as common a
saying as the doctors proverb that a
lawyer can find an excuse in law for taking
any position upon any question for which
he may be sufficiently well paid.
Two weeks ago Arthur Rogers suggested
before Judge Slack that as the Fair will
been stolen it would be only proper to
amend the petition and submit a copy for
probate.
Mr. Pierson of Pierson & Mitchell, who
is credited with having drawn the formid-
able and peculiar will, took very positive
exception to any such move. He declared
that such step would invalidate the
whole proceeding looking toward the pro-
bate
Notwithstanding this warming coming
from such a source, the supplemental petit
ton was filed by Mr.. McEnerney the latest
acquisition to the forces a few days after
ward.
Mr.. Pierson was seen yesterday afternoon
and asked for an explanation of this ac-
ton, which he had declared to be nothing
less than fatal to their case.
81 have only to say that did not frame
the supplemental petition, he said.
GU advised against it z"
Yes
you are still counsel for the execu-
tors?'
Yes; but l don't care to say anything
more about it. The matter will be argued