The San Francisco call., 1896-11-17


Mnat IL nay not be improper here to ask,
were the motives which prompted this con-
sent Mhy were Charles L. Fair and his sis
lers wlIiing that an instrument which he had
under oath denounced as spurious should be
heid TO be the Will and that the pencil will,
rnoiay mmiJn lney nad all SO often and so solemnly
proclaimeu genuine, should be held to be not
the VIII OF their father? Why did he and they
agree that testament should be decreed by
h. sns court 70 De valid and honest which he had
niinself under oath denied the genuineness of
and mac charged to be fraudulent and pro-
cured 10 be executed only "by reason of the
weakness of mind and body of the said James
Graham Fair deceased, and of mis- suscentibil
lty 10 prejudice and the influence and arritices
OF those ABOUT him, and by reason of the conf
uenual relations existing between the said de-
ceased and the said conspirators. and by rea-
son OF the aforesaid misrepresentation OF said
conspirators?n
Why did he and they consent that the eye
cutors therein named should administer upon
The estate, when he had, in his contest of this
very VIII, characterized them designing
ds ped,sons ana .,consplrators," who had 'con-
federated together for the purpose OF infiuenc-
Ing and compelling the said Jemes Graham
Fair, contrary to his own wishes and will, but
pursuant to their wishes and will 10 make and
execute last will and testament wherein and
whereby they would be benefited" and Every
large prohts, remunerations and benefits
them"2
Is it to be believed that the pencil will had
been brought forward merely as an inslru-
mentality To rid the estate of the trust con-
tanned in the trust wtll; that, if the heirs were
unsuccessful in otherwise accomplishing that
oblect, then, the pencil will was 10 be pro-
pated; but IL the trust could otherwise be got
rld OF, then the pencil will, regardless of its
merits, was TO be cast aside and some out
standing and possibly onerous obligations in
cldent to its probate thereby avoided?
Upon this subject it is proper to recall the
utterances OF one of the heirs legal advisers,
mace Immediately after the rendition OF the
courts opinion.
One of the attorneys for Charles L. Fair, on
the very day the decision was rendered had
said, as reported in THE CALL OF February 4,
1896:
We shall now proceed to probate the will with
out the trust clause, and If it shall admitted 20
PROBATE the estate Will be distributed directly to
the children.
The carrying out of this purpose-the pro-
Dating OF the trust will without the trust
clause-would, it might seem, be open to the
objection, among others, OF turning over the
administration OF the estate to the designing
persons and conspirators, who, the heirs had
charged, had confederated for the purpose OF
practcing fraud upon their father in order
10 aespoll his estate. 1t is natural 10 assume
that some method had been found OF mitigat-
Ing the heirs original antagonism TO these
men.
This assumption might perhaps receive
nght from the fact that on the 5th of June,
1896, just ten days before the commencement
OF the action 10 attack the trust clause OF the
trust will, the attorneys for Charles L. Fair,
Theresa A. Oelrichs aud Virginia Fair signed
a stipulation that the special administrators
OF the estate-the identical designing per-
sons" and "conspirators," who, they had
solemnly ayerred had 'confederated" for the
purpose of looting the estate-should ''draw
go, 600 each against their commissions"
Two OF the executors and special adminisira-
torS-one- half OF the whole number for there
were but four in all-had for years been clerks
OF the deceased, receiving clerks salaries.
They had served as special administrators for
five months (from January to June, 1891 and
the heirs agreed that they should receive
therefor $25, 900 each.
These facts might perhaps at another time
call for comment. On the present occasion
their only value is to show that the change of
the children's attitude toward the pencil will,
taking place under the circumstances stated,
ought not justly to exercise a controlling in
huence upon my mind as regards the question
OF It's genuinenesS.
The hope, however, of securing the pro-
batting of the trust will was frustrated by the
decision of this court, made on The 10Th day
OF March, 1896, to the effect that tho petition
for the probate OF the pencil Will was entitled
to precedence, and should be set for hearing
on the 9th of the same month. the pencil
Will being thus again Drouch. TO the front,
once more received, for time ut least, the
favorable consideration of all parties in inter
est. On the 23d OF the same month one of the
counsel for the children said in an interview
with Il reporter of THE CALL, published in thu
next mornings issue OF that paper, "that he
believed the pencil will to be genuine, and
had said so re peatedly."
This view. however, would seem not to have
long prevailed. for on the 5th OF April, one OF
the attorneys for Charles L. Fair made. in an
interview published in the Examiner OF the
next day, the following statement:
We are fighting it che pencil wiI) because we
claim ii is forgery Being forged instrument,
we care not what it contains.
And in an interview OF the 81 of April, pub
lisned in the Report of that uay, the same at
torney had stated:
have been opposed TO the penciled Will from
the beginning and intend 10 fight 1t.
In justification OF my declination to follow
the varying. opinions of the children
and their legal advisers touching the
genuineness of the pencil will, it may
not be without interest to note here
in passing, that the author of this utterance is
the same gentleman who, on the 10th of
March OF the preceding year, had said that
the accusation that the will is a forgery is
absurd" and my partner, = and myself
would never sanction forged will. We inves-
tigated IT thoroughly before we became salts
fed that was genuine and we feel confident
1t is"; and. on the Goth of the same month,
had said: 81 am confident there is no other
will in existence made later than the one we
filed. We are satisfied OF that and also that il
isa genuine one. We will introduce some proofs
of its genuineness that will surprise some peo-
Pile; and, as late as the 9th of May had said:
''Wiil we contest the probation of the will of
September 81 before that of the 24th? You
betwe will . on all lines. We will fight
them all along the line from start to finish
and will win our case yet We will begin our
fight to- morrow in earnest and we will give
the others all they want before we are through
with Them. We Will put in our con-
test to day and we will show that the later
wlliisthe one that should be probated first"
Two days after this rerudiation Charles L.
Fair filed over his own signature and that of
his attorneys contest OF the pencil will. de-
nying its genuineness This is the same gen
tleman who on the 10Th of March, 1895. mad
said: 81 think ought to know my fathers
handwriting, and this talk about the will (the
pencil WilD being forgery Is absurd'
This contest was filed within few days
after it had been publicly stated by the press
that Mrs. Craven had deeds to valuable pron-
erty from Senator Fair and also marriage
contract.
After the urging of endless dilatory pleas. the
argument OF which covered period of five
months, the two daughters of the deceased at
length, on the 10th of September 1896, flied
their answer 10 the oproslt ton of Judge Pater-
son. This answer was signed by all their at
torneys and counsel. In it they aver that
they "have no information or belief upon the
NEW .