The San Francisco call., 1896-02-04
The FAIR TRUST
DECLARED VOID,
Judge Slack's Decision Is in
Favor of the
Heirs.
GOODFELLOW TO APPEAL
The Court Holds That the Trust
Clause Would Lead to
an Absurdity.
THE WILL GOES TO PROBATE.
Validity of the Trusts Concerning
Personal Property Not Involved
in the Decision.

Judge Slack rendered the first big de-
cision In the Fair will case yesterday morn
ing. In a document of more than 80 900
words Judge Slack ruled that the trust en-
acting clause of the will was invalid, be-
cause to follow its terms would lead to an
absurdity and defeat the testators purpose
in framing it.
The trust, as sought to be created by Sec
ton Is of testator's will, was also contrary
10 the provisions of section 738 of the Code
OF Civil Procedure as amended in 1895, the
court held. As to the contention of Mr..
Goodfellow and his co-trustees and exec
utors that this amendment to the code was
invalid because it had not been passed by
the Legislature in the constitutional man.
uer, Judge Slack held, first, that according
10 rulings of the Supreme Court of the
United States legislative journals should
not be examined to ascertain the validity
of the passage OF an act, and the enroll
ment of the act itself was evidence of it
having been properly passed, and, second,
that it did appear that the amendment to
the act had not been passed in an uhcon>
stitutional manner.
OF course, the effect of the decision is.
supposIng Judge Slack's ruling to be up
held by the Supreme Court on appeal, that
the four trustees named in the will of the
late Senator Fair of Septem Der 81, 1894
will hereafter have no standing in court in
this issue, and that upon probate of the
will the entire estate will go directly to
the heirs without the intervention of q
trust.
The plaintiffs in the case were prac-
tically Charles L. Fair, Hermann Oelrichs
and his wife Theresa A. Oelrichs, and Vir.
ginia Fair, being the children of deceased
These, at least, are the ones TO profit di.
rectly by the decision, should it be up.
held in the Supreme Court, though as a
TACT Charles l.. Fair alone appeared as
plaintiff and Miss Fair and Mr. and Mrs.
0elrichs appeared as defendants in the case.
However, the real observation-disclosures
against whom the great legal battle was
fought and against whom the decision
weighs-were the four trustees name ed in
the will, w. S. GoodfeiIow, James S. An
gus, Louis Z. Bresse and Thomas G.
Crothers.
When court opened yesterday morning
che entire space inside the railing was oc-
cupied even to the point of crowding by
the attorneys and counselors directly OF
~ Dc dAcCtCu DI lE6 QGClSl0H
promised at that hour. The principal con.
testants in the great case were represented
as follows:
Messrs. knight g. Heggerty, CARRIER
Boalt. Bishop & Wheeler, and Wilson &
Wilson for the plaintiff.
Messrs. Pierson & Mitchell for the de-
PENDANTS James S. Angus, Louis G.
Bresse and Thomas G. Crothers.
Garret w. McEnerney for the defendant
w. S. Goodfellow.
Messrs Lloyd d Wood for the defend.
ants Hermann Oelrichs, Theresa A. Gel.
richs and Virginia Fair
John A. Percy for certain benefciaries
Messrs. Rodgers & Paterson for certain
beneiciarirs.
Frank P. Deering, ESQ.,, amicus curia.
Aside from these there were mum Der OF
other interested well-known ATTORNEYS
within the inclosure, of which the following
is nearly complete list: e. J. Pringle,
s. K. Thornton, Guy G. Earl, John E.
Richards. Van r. Paterson, Horace G..
Platt, Fisher Ames, Donzell Stoney, J. T.
Tyler, William P. Lawlor, John Flournoy.
William Rix, Alexander sHeynemann.
John O. Byrne, JOIN A. Percy, William
II.
son, Herbert Choynski, Frank NJ. Stone.
The Rev. Father Mulligan, secretary to
the Archbishop, was also an interested
listener. Seldom, if ever before in this
City, has the reading OF an opinion by a
Superior Judge been listened to as ap-
preciatively and by so learned aud dis
tinguished an audience.
Judge Slack did not read the entire de-
cision, which would have taken many
more hours than there are in a court day.
but wisely recited only those portions
most necessary to a clear comprehension
of the conclusions reached. At the con-
clusion of the reading the court announced
that ten days would be allowed defendants
in W ich to file amended answers, and At
torney McEnerney gave notice of an ap
peal from the decision. Then next Mon
day morning was decided upon for the
commencement o probate proceedings on
the will in question.