The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-06-30
GEORGE BARRON
IN COURT AGAIN,
Act Passed for the Fair
Contestants Relied
Upon.
TO ATTACK THE TRUST.
Edward Barron's Sanity and His
Wife'S Influence to Be
Inquired Into.
THE LAW OF PERPETUITY.
Plaintiffs Attorneys Claim the Trust
Is Invalid According to Cali
fornia Law.
THE LAW OF PERPETUITY

George E. Barron has made another
move to obtain what he considers his just
share of his fathers millions. The action,
which was commenced in this City yester
day, is in the form of a suit to quiet title,
and in its determination will call for a
recital of the eourtship and marriage OF
the fair Irish widow and the prosperous
butcher, which occupied the attention of
the Superior Court of Santa Clara County
for several weeks.
The action which was brought then was
for the revocation of the will on the
grounds that Edward Barron was of un-
sound mind ana was under undue intiu-
ence. After a most sensational trial,
which received large attention from the
press of the entire State and in which the
most eminent counsel in the State were
engaged, a jury rendered verdict for the
plaintiff
The defendants, whose chief champions
were John CARRIER of this City and 5. F..
Leib of San Jose, made motion for new
trial. Delmas & Shortridge, who had con-
Quoted the case for the plaintiff, made a
vigorous opposition to the motion, but he
two Judges of the county sitting in bank
entertained some doubt as to the correct
ness OF some of their previous rulings, and
thev allowed the motion. The case is now
pending in Santa Clara County, but with
no immediate prospect Of trial.
at the time the suit was brought in
Santa Clara County an action resisting the
probate of the will was the only one under
which the sighted son could hope for re-
lief from its provisions. Since then the
Legislature has convened and Governor
Budd has approved an act making ii pos
sible to attack in a collateral proceeding
the validity OF trust or bequest expressed
IN will. This Is the act passed primarily
for the benefit of some Of the Fair con-
testants and the approval of which has
brought some criticism upon the Gov
ernor, not for any in Justice in the act, but
from the fact that he was at the time en-
gagged as counsel for Charles FAIR.
The passage OF this act has opened an
other door into court for George Barron.
Bv the provisions of the Will 100000 was
left to George Barron in trust This trust
is not questioned by him, however. Bar
ron left to his son William SOC, 900, and
to charity $45, 900. No effort will be made
bv George to distribute this latter sum
either. In the Santa Clara County case he
offered to stipulate that the charities
should receive their share irrespective of
the determination of the suit by Nicholas
Bowden, who represented most of the elee-
mosynary benehciaries and who refused to
accede to this on the ground that it would
not be binding as regarded the minor heirs.
OF the residue of the estate, amounting
to 81 so, 5000 or $170,0 00 one-fourth was left
to the widow absolutely and the remain
der was given to her in trust for her minor
children. 1t is this latter provision that
George now attacks.
The action, according to Georges attor-
neys, Sullivan & Sullivan, will be based