The San Francisco call., 1896-11-28
spirited discussion lasting several min


uies.
Then Attorney Garret McEnerney. rep
resenting the two children took hand.
and omitting reference to the supposed
| antagonism of Mr.. Goodspeed to the in
terests OF MS minor children, who are
also his wards, asked:
Have you appropriated that $4,000, or
any part OF it. for the purpose of carving
on this contest2"
After considerable argument, in which
Messrs. Heggerty, Hanlon, Shortridge
and McEnerney joined the court allowed
the question. and Mr.. Goodspeed answered
in the negative.
Mr.. Goodspeed said he had always been
willing to support the children to the best
of his ability, and is willing TO do so yet.
He will do ali that the court requires OF
him in that regard to the extent of his
ability.
He said he is in good health and able to
provide some support for the children,
but not so much as he thinks they ought
to have.
Mr.. Heggerty then attempted to elicit
history OF tho financial condition of Mr..
Goodspeed's elder children, and finally
asked what he thought the minors ought
20 have Tor their support. He said they
ought to receive not less than 500 each a
month, of which sum he would be willing
to contribute one half, or as much as the
court should think was proper.
1t was explained that the attor-
neys for the estate object to the
family allowance on the ground that Mr.
Goodspeed is able to support and educate
his own children and that it is his duty to
do so irrespective of their interest in the
mothers estate, said interest being con-
ilngent on the settlement of the estates of
N. T.. Pratt and 0. &. Pratt; that the
estate of Lucy Goodspeed has only small
amount OF money available for payment
n fnws, aIx- Ill
the court, and that the property OF the
estate does not produce revenue N excess
OF the necessary expenses for interest,
court fees, etc.
Mr.. Hanlon explained that it would be
very vexatious TO have an order laid on
the administrator of the estate which he
could not obey, and then he would be
liable to be called up at any time TO an
swer charge of contempt on account of
non-payment.
Judge Coffey said that contempt pro-
ceedings had been abolished in his de-
partment, so far as laymen were con-
cerned.
Daniel J. Sullivan, administrator of the
estate of Mrs. Goodspeed. testified that
the estate now has 1864 on hand, against
which there are claims amounting to S1S8.
The cash income is $65 month for rent of
residence on California street. Interest on
the mortgage, payable monthly. is S54
AuOAeh. III are some court
fees and bills of printers for transcripts
and briefs.
Answering Mr.. Heggerty Mr.. Sullivan
said the estate owns SAL sacks OF wheat in
Butte County, insured for $500. The wheat
is soon to be sold. Mr.. Sullivan said he
had no objection to the granting of a
family allowance, except that the estate is
not able to pay it.
G. f. Hanlon testified that he is ac-
quainted with the litigation in which the
Goodspeed estate is involved; that four
appeals are now pending. and that it is
necessary to reserve all the available
funds of the estate in order to pay pressing
bills. Mr.. Hanlon said that he did not
think it would be for the best interests OF
the minors to have money paid to Mr..
Goodspeed, as it was understood that his
interests and sympathies are antagonistic
to theirs, SO far as the contest of their
mothers will is concerned, and part OF the
money might be used to their detriment
in that respect.
MIR. Shortridge then introduced the de-
cree in the divorce proceedings brought by
the late Mrs. Goodspeed against her hus-
band in which decree the father was or
dered to support the minor children. This
decree is still IN full force.
Argument of the case was continued
until next Friday.