The San Francisco call., 1896-04-25
The Promised Suit Over a Sup.
posed Blythe Will Filed
Yesterday.
NEW START OF AN OLD CASE.
All Lawyers in the Proceeding Prefer
to Remain Reticent Regarding
the Main Facts.

Sarah J. Carr has filed her complaint
for share of the Blythe millions, and a
new phase of the famous case has been
commenced. She demands $1,000, which
she says was left to her by Thomas Blythe
by will, and she demands interest upon 1t
from April 4, 1884, the date of Blythe's
death.
w. II. n. Hart is defendant, and his
name figures prominently in the COM
plant in connection with some sensa-
tional charges. He is accused of fraudu-
lently suppressing and of destroying the
will which Thomas Blythe lef. behind
him, and all because his contract to secure
for Florence Blythe, the estate of the old
man. for a large percentage of the same
estate might be impaired.
The complaint states that Hart had a
contract with Florence Blythe to secure
for her the S3, 100000 left by Thomas
Blythe, for 25 per cent of what he was able
to win. Thomas Blythe left will. the
complaint continues, leaving among other
legacIes, $5000to James d. Carr.
Hart, it is alleged, has received in pur-
suance of his contract much more than
the legacy of plaintiff, and so he was made
defendant.
Carr died in Trinity County, Cal, on
February H. 1894. still in ignorance of any
legacy left to him by Blythe. Since then,
however, his widow has learned of the
will and the legacy. and as Administrative
of her husbands estate she is suing for it.
She prays that 1t be decreed that Hart
holds $4,000 of the estate in trust for her,
together with suitable interest. and that
he be compelled to pay the same over to
her.
Attorneys Pringle and Miller were very
retlcent conce rning the matters in the
complaint 1--WE can prove every
allegation in the complaint" said E. J..
Pringle, ''but it would be impolitic for me
to disclose our case at this juncture.
Everything alleged in the complaint is
susceptible of proof by reliable witnesses"
B. NJ. Miller said that though they had
not the original will, they would have no
difficulty in proving its existence and the
accuracy of their copy by reliable wit
nesses. "Just what means were used to
induce the parties having the will in their
possession to conceal it, or how it came to
be destroyed, we are not now in position
to announce" said he. "It is certainly
very peculiar that Mr.. Hart and Mr.. Ko-
HdlShy SuOulo O1SdSIcc OH SUCH al lIu-
portant matter, as whether or not money
was paid for the suppression of the will.
Mr.. Kowalsky says there was. Mr.. Hart
says there was not. We will not say at
present.
"Under the will l believe Mrs Hinckley
would have received more than she has
under the code. There was in the will
provision for some 100000 in legacies
This is less than the expenses of the liti
cation which she has undergone. Since
draughting the complaint l have been in
formed that the percentage of the estate
which Mr.. Hart received was not 25 pei
cent, but it was very large. There will
be a number of similar suits brought BY
other legatees I understand, but / am no
prepared to state this authoritatively.
W. II. II. Hart, when shown the com
plant, announced that part of the allega
tions were untrue and the remainder b,
did not know anything about. 81 only saw
this Mrs. Carr two or three times" b.
said, land I never paid her a cent. Ko
walsky must have been drunk when b,
stated that paid her $4,000. The will was
brought to US originally soon after tn,
Sharon case, in which some one had t,
pay a great deal of money for bogus pa
per and we were little wary. AS soon q.
looked at the paper 1 was satisfied it wa
fraud.
"At first they claimed they had tn,
original, but afterward admitted they only
had copy. In this the Phelan property
was described instead of the Blythe prop
erty, and old man Blythe knew his prop
erty as well as I or any one else does now
We did not send the will to Mr.. Estee, as
was Inadvertently stated. 1t was the par.
ties who had it in their possession who
had Mr.. Estee investigate the matter, and
he declared there was nothing In it.
Morris M. Estee, when questioned in re-
gard to the matter, stated in deprecatinp
way that he had looked into the matter q
long time ago, but knew little about it.
He excused himself from telling what
little he did know.
Tbao se, - -