The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-21
MORE OF DAVIS WILL.
The Entire Celebrated Contest VIII Prob
ably BE Reopened.

The Entire Celebrated Contest Will Prob
ably he Reopened.
According to a petition filed in the
district court yesterday the entire Da-
Wis will contest is to be reopened. The
petitioner is Mrs. Elizabeth S. Bow
dom Of Springfield. Mass, and a sister
of the deceased millionaire, Andrew ]
Davis. She asks the court to revoke
the probate of the old will over which
the contest by the Root faction was
carried on for years and which was fin
ally admitted to probate about a year
ago under some private Arrangement
for the division OF the estate. but
which arrangement did not include
some heirs at law who had taken no
part in the original contest. Mrs. Bow
dom was probably one of these, or at
least she was not satisfied with the ar
rangement. and she brings up the whole
story of forgery and repeats many of
the allegations used in the old contest.
In her petition she relates the we'll
known facts of the death of Judge Da-
Wis on March IL, 1890, the number and
names of his heirs at law and next of
kin, the admission to probate of the
long disputed will and the appoint
ment of j. II. Leyson as administration
She then alleges the old story that the
instrument purporting to be the last
will and testament of the deceased is
invalid and wholly void for the reason
that 1t was never signed by Andrew ]. 4
Davis or by the alleged witnesses to IL,
or either of them, but that IL is forged
and fraudulent instrument and that
the various signatures appended to il
are forged and fraudulent and the in
strument is not the will of the dece-
dent.
The petition also sets up the old
ground that the alleged will. If ever
executed by Andrew J. Davis, was
thereafter revoked by him and that in
the year 1880, the precise date of which
Is unknown to the petitioner, he exc
cuted another will at the city of Butte
which was by him declared to be his
last will and testament. The new will
was thereafter deposited with one Ed
ward w. knight, and was by him de-
posted in the vault of the First Ma
tional bank at Helena, where IL re-
NAMED for a period of upward of five
years and subsequently,, about 1896 ,
Mr. Davis voluntarily and with intent /
so to do. destroyed 1t without any in !
tention of reviving any former wills |
ever made by him. The last will con- |
tanned a clause expressly revoking all |
former wills.
probated will is wholly invalid and void |
and imperative for the reason that il |
ever executed IL has been revoked by \
the execution of the new will in about |
the year 1880, the terms and provisions |
Of which were wholly inconsistent and |
at variance with and repugnant to the |
terms of the will purporting to have
been executed by Davis in 1856. The
will of 1880, the petition alleges, dis
DOCpd a re hN a |
bequeathing the different portions of
the property so that some of the sis
ters and nieces and heirs at law of the
deceased was made legatees and de-
vises of all the property, saving only
that small and inconsiderable requests
were made to Thomas Jefferson Davis
and Pet Davis and requests of $40 900
Zach which were made to Edward w
Knight, Samuel t. Hauser and w. W.
Dixon, who were named as executors
If the will. The will further directed
hat, as such executors, they should
continue the working and operating of
what is known as the Lexington mill
ind mine as it had been Heretofore
conducted by the testator. 1t was no
where provided in the terms of the will
# 1880 that any devise or bequest
hould be given to John A. Davis, nor
lid the name of John A. Davis appear
n the will. although the whole of the
state was disposed of by the terms of
he will.
The petitioner says she does not
,now the precise amount given by the
will to each one of the sisters and
Iieces, and she is unable at this time
o set up with greater precision the
erms of the will, but prays that she
nay be permitted to show the same
pom the trial of the contest The petit ,
ion further alleges that the evidence !
dduced upon the probate of the old |
,ill was not sufficient In law to admit |
to probate, and due and legal no
Ice of the intention to present the al
eyed Will and testament for probate !
1as never given to the petitioner nor
as she ever had actual or construc- !
I've notice that the will was to be pre- ,
ented for probate, nor of the proceed
lgs, stipulations or agreements by ,
hitch the will was finally admitted to
rebate.
The petition further recites the death
John A. Davis on Jan 20, 1898, and
his heirs, some of whom
We in Butte and some in Chicago. and ,
lat John r. Davis was afterwards APP :
ointed administrator of the estate !
he legatees named in the probated
Ill OF Andrew j. Davis are one Caro-
ne Bargett. who has married one
NTH; Thomas Jefferson Davis and !
PIN A. Davis, deceased. Pet Davis 4
AIMED as legatee has died. leaving as
er heirs-at-law Caroline Bergett 4
NTH and Thomas jefferson Davis. .
ne petition concludes with a prayer !
lat the probate of the alleged will be !
voked and that a citation be issued
Administrator Leyson. TO John f. !
avis individually as administrator OF :
e estate of John A. Davis: 10 Andrew
Davis, Jr., Edward II. Davis. George I
r. Davis. Charles @. Davis. Morris
avis. Thea Jane Davis. widow of John
Davis; Henry a. Root. Caroline :