The San Francisco call., 1896-08-04
the deposition which he desired to know

| but IT 1t was legltlmate crOsS-queStlODs ne
made no objections; things that had hap
pened since, however, were not admls-
sible.
McEnerney put this question: did you
not on the completion OF your deposition
on Thursday, July 9, disappear
Delmas Immediately objected. This was
not cross-examination. The court sus-
tanned the objection, remarking that such
questions would be proper in.the contempt
proceedings.
"Your Honor may fine the witness for
contempt but this question is directed
here toward fixing the value of the depo-
sltlon itself. If it can be shown that he
wished to evade the issue, feared to sign
the deposition, it will serve to discredit 1t.
Mr.. Delmas said he would advise the
witness not to answer the question, as It
was not cross-examinatIon, and the court
sustained him in so doing. McEherney
then asked the same question several times
in different forms, all of which were treated
in the same manner.
Delmas now recited the circumstances
concerning the change of the attitude of
Charley Fair toward the pencil will. He
had offered it for probate once, declaring
it to be his fathers last will. Then he
entered an opposition TO it. Up to this
time, however, the sisters or their at
torneys had not been served, and so far as
the record is concerned they are still with
the pencil will.
Heggerty said he was sure the attorneys
had been served. The record, however,
would be cleared, he said.
r. B. Mitchell read a petition giving
notice that they would ask for an order
giving permission to inspect a certain
marriage contract alleged to be in posses
sion of Mrs. Nettie R. Craven; also let
ter of the date OF December 10, 1894, pur-
porting to come from Senator Fair to Mrs.
Craven, toge her with all the papers she
may possess"
Mr.. Delmas objected. He said these pa
pers had nothing to do with the case at
bar. which was suit to quiet title to real
estate. The obvious purpose of the mo-
ton was to secure information belonging
10 their adversaries; to discover the
strength and weakness of their case.
Their was no provision in the code for
such a proceeding. 1t must be shown
that the papers sought were necessary to
their own case. This had not and could
not be DONE"
McEnerney, in reply, said that the issue
in this case was, of course, whether or not
these papers were forgeries. He held that
they were. 1t was not necessary to know
whether or not Senator Fair and Mrs.
Craven were really married. He began TO
reeite the series of incidents CO injected
with the making of the will, when Delmas
was quoting fromaffid avits that were not
filed at the time the petition on which his
motion was based was dated.
The motion was withdrawn on this
showing with the promise that it would be
renewed to-day. With this the morning
proceedings ended.
The argument in the matter of Fair vs..
Angus was fixed for the afternoon. and
Mr.. McEnerney began by the introduc-
ton of the affidavits of Mrs. Haskins and
Margaret Craven.
Mr.. knight interrupted with the in
quiry as to whether Mr.. McEnerney
would vouch for the parties, as to whether
they were worthy of belief.
McEnerney said he offered them simply
as atfidavits.
But" said Mr.. Knight, "if you do not
believe in them yourself it is an imposi-
tion on this court to present them to sus-
tain your position. You have yourself
assailed one of these parties as | have
never before heard woman assailed.
Now, will you say that her affidavit is
worthy of credenceP
ut takes my breath away to hear the
attorneys on the other side challenge our
position in this way. | stand where
stood at the beginning of this litigation.
There is one firm here representing three
clients, one of whom is for the pencil
will, the others opposed to it. Other gen.
tlemen who favored the pencil will are
now opposed to it. 1t must be
accepted, if we have any belief in pro-
fessional honor, that they were convinced
that 1t was a forgery; that it was not the
true will which they at first claimed il to
be. Now ge wish to get at the facts; let
us have no more coquetting with these
two wills. They should be compelled to
take a stand one way or the other AS
Mr., Wheeler ssid in his open
Il.
matter over year age: This
case involves the most important question
that has perhaps ever come before our
courts. The parties to il should be made
to take a stand one way or the other. 1t
is a matter affecting our public morals y
He referred caustically TO the compromise
contract, and said: "The first thing to be
determined is as to which of these docu-
ments is the last will of Senator Fair. If
it is the pencil will then that ends it so
far as we are concerned, and no one will
leave it with less regret than my client
and myself"
Knight declared that so far as Knight &
Heggerty were concerned it was pretty
we'll understood as to how they had always
looked upon pencil wills and kindred
documents. As the case went on it would
be shown they bad not turned very
heavy somersault He said they might
yet join McEnerney i'll his position against
that document, and he did not want him
to make the mistake of vouching for a
witness that he (Knight) would never
vouch for.
Reuben H. Lloyd rose up very angry at
McEnerney. II stand here and say that it
is not true that a compromise was offered
dlscreditahle in any way. am tired of
hearing these insinuations from the other
side. | was practicing law before he was
born, and l know as much about profes-
sional honor as he does and of what is re-
quired between counsel and client"
Wheeler also felt calico upon to answer
McEnerney's onslaught. He was more
discursive than Lloyd, however. Touch
ing ''the broad question of public morals''
he wanted to know where McEnerney was
when $500, 900 proposition was made to
Mrs. Craven.
McEnefney said that was easily Disposed
Of. When the representatives of Charles
Fair set UP that Mrs. Craven had claims
against the estate that she would re-
linquish, his client, Mr. Goodfellow, had
consented to represent the matter to the
court with recommendation IN her favor.
That was all.
Delmas said the only question before the
court now was. "Is this pencil will valid
will: ?" He was ready to put it to the
issue.
Judge Paterson Joined McEnerney in