The San Francisco call., 1896-11-28
Says She Had a Carload of Such
Letters, but Would Not
Show Them.
JUDGE CoFFEY SAYS SHE MUST
An Importent Move in the Case
Won by the Counsel for Mrs.
D4riing's Children.

When s. Clinton Hastings died the gen.
eral public did not expect that hitherto
unsupported widow would loom up on the
horizon with right hand and open palm
extended for his estate.
The contention now pending before the
Probate Court is all the more interesting
because of the prominence of the de-
ceased. Judge Hastings was formerly a
Justice of the Supreme Court of the State
of Iowa. He was the first Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the State OF
California and afterward its Attorney
General, while he was universally recog-
nized by his fellow-member of the bar as
iurist of unsurpassed learning and legal
qualifca tions. As the founder of the
Hastings Law College his name is a
household word in the ranks of the legal
fraternity.
The woman who claims title to some of
the dead mans effects sat in Judge Cof-
fey's court yesterday afternoon while
Samuel NJ. Shortridge and Matt Sullivan,
counsel on both sides, argued on motion
growing out of an incident during the
woman's examination before Notary Pub
lie Levy a short time ago. In the course
of that examination she swore that she
had wagon-load of letters from the de-
ceased, in which he addressed her as his
Petite" his Darling" and his "Dear
Wife"
Mr.. Shortridge, who was conducting the
examination on behalf of the Hastings
heirs. requested her TO produce those let
ters. ii any such existed, and she declined
to do so. Mr.. Shortridge appeared before
Judge Coffey, and asked that the court
make an order compelling her to produce
the letters Tor his inspection.
Mr.. Shortridge stated to the court that
Mrs. Mary Viola Hastings. as she called
herself, alleged that she was the surviving
widow of the deceased, and that he was
not of sound mind at the time he executed
his will and the several cod1cils attached
thereto. He then recited the fact OF the
deposition ana the statement OF the woman
regarding her possession OF certain letters
alleged TO have been written to her by the
deceased, which letters she alleged con-
tanned expressions calculated 10 show that
he regarded her as his wife. He argued
that the letters were material to the case,
and that therefore the witness should be
compelled to produce the letters.
Attorney Sullivan on behalf of the
claimant read a section of the code, and
argued that the woman could not be COM
PEELED to produce the letters before the
notary. He iutimated that Mr.. Short
rid5e was ''fshing'
Yes, fishing for the TRUTH" replied Mr..
Shortridge.
In support of his motion, Mr.. Shortridg ge
argued that he was acting under the regu-
lar rules of procedure. The law was not to
be construed as preventing a party from
compelling another to produce BOOKS or
papers when he is under examination as @
witness before a notary. If she had
been examined before the court there Is
nc doubt that she would have been or
dered to produce the documents, they be.
ing material. 'The contestant claims 10
be the widow of Judge Hastings. She
must at the very outset establish this
claim. She undertakes to do SO by saying
| that Judge Hastings recognized her as his
wife and addressed her many letters as
such. These letters, if they exist, are OF
vital importance in this case. 1t is iGie &c
question their materiality. The con.
testant says they are in her possession. L
SO. we ask that they be produced" said
the attorney.
Judge Coffey granted Mr.. Shortrid ge'.
motion and said that he would sign the
necessary order at o'clock this after
noon.
The taking of the deposition of the al
legged widow of Judge Hastings will be re.
sumed before Notary Levy.