The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-27

TOT SAID John A. Davis as prepayment o
the alleged will of Andrew J. Davis. n,
notice of any Of the proceedings wa
ever given to the petitioner. and sh'
was in no way represented in the pro
ceedings
Thereafter, and before the 9th day o.
March, 1895, the contestants, Henry A
Root and Sarah NJ. Cummings, Har.
riet r. Sheffield and Henry A. Davis
combined with Ellen s. Cornue, A.
Davis. tr., John E. Davis, Edward A
| Davis, George W. Davis. Charles G.
Davis. Thea Jane Davis, Mary Louise
Dunbar and Elizabeth s. Ladd. and
conspired together and entered into a
fraudulent agreement to divide the es-
tate of Andrew J. Davis and the assets
| and proceeds thereof among them
selves and to defraud and deprive the
| petitioner Of her rightful share and in
terest therein or some portion thereof,
and in pursuance of the fraudulent
| agreement IL was secretly agreed by
and between said persons. the contest
ants, Henry A. Root. Sarah NJ. Cum
/ mings, Harriet r. Sheffield and Henry
A. Davis, should withdraw their OBJ
jections to the probate of the will of
1866. thus allowing IL to be admitted TO
probate, and thus the right of the
petitioner as next Of kin and heirs-at-
law of Andrew j. Davis should be di-
ment.
According to the information and
belief of the petitioner the parties to
the fraudulent agreement well know
and still believe that the alleged will
was a forgery and a simulated docu-
ment. In pursuance to the fraudulent
agreement, the forged will was admit
ted to probate, without the introduce
ton of any witnesses whatever, and
without any testimony whatever hav-
ing been taken on the hearing or con-
sideration whatever, save and except
transcript of the testimony of j. c.
Sconce and Mary A. Downey, taken
from the mass of evidence at the orig
inal trial
The proportionate shares each party
to the alleged fraudulent agreement
was to receive by the division of the
estate are set out in the petition, and
also alleges that, prior to the filing
OF any petition for letters of admins
tration, at a meeting of the heirs of
Andrew j. Davis, in Springfield, Mass,
Henry A. Root declared There is no
Will; Uncle Andrew told me last win
ter there was no WILL" and he further
stated that Governor Hauser, Judge
Knowles and w. w. Dixon had told
him there was no will, and that he
was going to Montana to represent
himself and sister, and advised them
not to give a paper of any kind to
Erwin Davis or to anybody else until
they had consulted the best legal tai
ent they could find.
Mrs. Smith says she has at all times
been ready and willing to pay and con-
tribute her proportion of the expenses
incurred in the procurement of the
evidence necessary to establish the in
validity of the pretended will, but was
unable to acquire any knowledge what
80
much had been expended therefor H.
A. Root and the moneyed syndicate or
ganized by him in opposition to the
probate of the will have a.. all times
sought in divers and devious ways to
compel and coerce the petitioner to
part with and convey to the said last
mentioned parties the whole or a large
part of her interest in the estate
Between July "a 1890, and July %,
1891, in the banking house of the First
National bank of Butte, during the
course of a conversation in reference
to his dead uncle. Andrew ]. Davis.
Jr, wrote the figures $3.50, 900 in PLAIN
view of j. Howard Smith, the attorney
for the petitioner and inquired: rs it
any use to talk to you?" and thereby
kindly reiterated his declaration, made |
at the time of the funeral of Andrew |
j. Davis, that Lizzie. meaning the pc |
titioner, shall have her share. |
The petitioner was promptly inform |
ed OF the proposition and would have |
been well satisfied to have taken the |
named as her portion of her /
uncle's estate, but failed to close with |
the offer because she did not desire 10 |
NEEDLE with the assets of the estate in |
advance of a proper legal distribution
thereof and had no desire to secure a
personal benefit in advance Of or at |
the expense Of the balance of the
heirs. The brothers and sisters Of An
drew j. Davis, by conveyance executed
by John A. Davis in his lifetime. claim
to have protected themselves against
loss through the fraudulent probate of
the pretended will
After reciting in detail and at great
length the facts related above, in sub
stance, the petition follows with a
of the testimony ait the trial
IL the original contest, a copy of the
famous and badly spelled will, and the
Drder of Judge Mediation admitting
he Will to probate, according to the
and agreement of the par
les TO the contest. The petition then
with prayer in which the
petitioner relates that she appears to
contest the validity of the pretended
will and the validity of the probate.
Ind the sufficiency of the proof thereof
Ind to revoke the letters of admins
iohiOli Wiln Iilt VIII annexed Issued 10 |
Iohn H. Leyson and to vacate the de-
rec of distribution entered on March
q, 1895, on the following grounds:
That the court never acquired and
lad no Jurisdiction over Elizabeth A.
smith on the subject matter OF the
to probate any will of An
rev j. Davis, and had no power or
to admit the alleged will 10 |
rebate nor issue letters of administra-
ion with the will annexed, nor enter
decree of distribution therein, for the
eason that the date of the hearing of
he petition to probate the will was
ever fixed by the court and no notice
Z any kind was ever given to the pc
ttioner or any one else. nor any notice
4 the entry OF any contemplated de-
rec of distribution.
That the hearing on the probate Of
he alleged will was never continued
r adjourned as to Elizabeth A. Smith
rom August %. $780, the date origin
liz nAe g. \