The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-27
FRAUD IS CHARGED
AGAINST THE DEAD
Elizabeth Waters Said to
Have Deceived the
Probate Court.
Took All of Her Husbands
Estate, When Entitled to
Only One-Half.
After Her Death Other Heirs Ap.
peared and Have Filed Applica.
ton for Their Shares.

Margaret Mulcahey. John H. Waters
and Catherine A. Woods have by their
attorneys, Myrick & Deering. filed a COM
plant against Hezekiah Dow, Susan H.
Hines, C. G. Hines, Mary Ann Hadley,
Arthur A. Dow, Chester 6. H. Follansbee,
Joseph Stevens, Darius Stevens, Ann r..
Shirley. Clinton Shirley, Eliza w. Fur
geson, Frank w. Furgeson and Hezekiah
Dow as special administrator of the estate
OF Elizabeth Waters, deceased. for the
purpose of recovering an interest in the
estate OF Arthur Waters, who died in.
testate in this City Decem Der 81, 1892.
The plaintiffs aver that at the time of
the death of Arthur Waters, Elizabeth
Waters, now deceased. was his wife, and
that the plaintiffs here mentioned were
related to said Arthur Waters, Margaret
Mulcahey being his sister and John H..
Waters and Catherine A. Woods being
the only children of q dead brother OF
Arthur Waters. AS Arthur Waters left
him surviving no child or children and
no child or children of any deceased
child, the plant iffs claim share OF the
estate, OF which they declare they were
defrauded by the late Elizabeth Waters.
at the time of the death of Arthur Wa
tiers his widow. Eizabe Waters, falsely
and fraudulently reported to the court
that she was the sole living heir to his es-
tate, and thereby deceived the court so
that the entire estate was distributed to
her. To make sure of her scheme she con-
cea,ed from these plaintiffs the fact that
Arthur Waters had died and they, living
in Eastern cities, did not learn of his
death until after she died. in June. 1895,
and her estate was in process OF admins
tration. Mrs. Waters left will beaueath-
ing her property to the persons named in
this complaint as defendants, and the
matter Of the distribution is still pending
IN the Probate Court, contest to the will
having been filed.
The plaintiffs declare that Mrs. Waters
was entitled to only one-half OF the estate
of Arthur Waters, and that at the time
she obtained possession OF the entire
estate by false testimony she we'll knew
that one fourth of the property rIghtfully
belonged 10 Margaret Mnlcahey and one
eighth each to John H. Waters and Cathe-
rine Woods.
Some valuable zeal estate is involved in
ner OF Polk and Geary streets. in this
City. s2%x120 feet in size. and another
lot, 20x6714 on Pine street, near Dupont.
The personal property is valuable prop
erty, and there is $2635 10 in cash.
In view Of the fact that Mrs. Waters
took possession of the property with an
intention of defrauding the plaintiffs,
and inasmuch as they were not informe d
of the death of Arthur Waters and not
permitted to be represented at the time
his estate was distributed, they demand
that the court enter decree establishing
the fact that when the property was dis
| tributed to Elizabeth Waters she took the
same and held 1t at the time of her death
| charged in trust in favor Of the plaintiffs
for their respective shares in said estate,
and the plaintiffs further ask that the
special administrator Ct the estate be re-
quired to deliver to them the shares to
which they are entitled.