The San Francisco call., 1896-11-17
influence. and on that subject the contestant

influence, and on that subject the contestant
alleged:
That for long time prior 10 the akng and
execution OF said alleged last Will and testament,
dlVers designing persons. who possessed the trust
ana confidence OF said deceased. had the desire
and intent 10 influence and induce The aforesaid
James Graham Fair. deceased to make last
Will aud testament in such form that the estate of
SAID James Graham Fair deceased should, after his
death, be placed in trust for long period
OF time, and that the provisions of said
VIII should be arranged that very
large profits, remunerations ana benefits shou Id
accrue therefrom and hereunder them;
that thereafter and pursuant 20 their aforesaid
d sign ana intent the said par ie. combined, con-
splred and confederaed together for the purpose of
influencing and compelling said James Graham
FAIR contrary to his own wishes and will bu: pur-
suant to their wishes and will, 10 make and execute
a last Will and testaInen wherein and whereby they
would be benefited aforesaid. And to that end
said consprators continually urged and pressed
upon the said James Graham Far, deceased, that
he make will containing the Identical provisions
ALLEGED to be contained in the alleged will. dated
September q, 1894. which hereinabove set
forth, and herein and hereby contested
That by reason of The weakness of mind and
body Of the SAID James eraham Fair, deceased,
and OF his susceptibility to prejudice and Tn in
huence OF those about him, and by eason of the
confidential relations existing between the said
deceased and the said conspirators, ana by reason
of the aforesaid misrepresentation of said con-
splra ors, the said James Graham Fair was in
duced and persuaded against his true wishes and
desires. but pursuant To the wishes and desires OF
SAID conspirators, make, execute and insert in
the alleged last will and stamenr dated Septem-
ber /, 1894 IT, in fact he ever made or executed
said instrument) each and all of the parts thereof
hereinaboy set forth and here and hereby con-
tested.
The petitioner concluded by praying:
That said alleged VIII, dated September 81,
1894, be denied probate; that the special
sues involved In said proceeding be submitted to
a jury, and your petitioner hereby requests and
demands jury trial Of the issues Involved in tuis
proceeding.
The significance and cogency OF this docu-
ment as eviden ce OF the conviction then en-
tertained by the children that the pencil will
was the last VIII OF their father, and that the
trust will was not. is manifest from the fact
that il was signed by the attorneys and coun-
sci OF all the children, and the further fact
that upon his confidence in his ability sue
cessfully 10 maintain that contest-that is, 10
prove the trust will fraudulent and yoid-the
contestant staked all he was given by that
will. That instrument, 1t may be remem-
bered, contains provision that any one con-
testing it should forfeit all rights under it.
Charles l.. Fair atfronted the perils of this for
feiture in full confidence OF his ability to
prove that will not to be the will of his iather.
On the day preceding this contest one of his
attorneys, rs quoted in the CALL of May z,
1895, had made the following statement:
VIII w contest the probation of the will of Sep
tember 81 before that of the Gath? You bet we
viii all lines We will fight them
all along the line from start finish ana Will win
our case yet We will begin fight tomorrow
in earnest. and will give the others all they
want before we are through with them. .
We will put in contest to-day and we will show
that the latter will is the tat should pc pro-
bated first IL we are permitted.
In the same connection the remarks of one
of the attorneys of the daughters, made in
open court on the day after The filing OF this
contest, may be here recalled. There was
then pending in court O discussion as 10 the
appointment of guardian Tor young Herman
Oelrichs. The court had appointed to that
position Judge Van K. Paterson. This ap-
pointment was strenuousy opposed by one of
The attorneys of the cnild's mother, who in
ted that the father, herman Oelrichs, was
the proper guardian, saying:
1t is monstrous that high minced honorable
gentleman should have his child taken from him
ana put in the hands OF q stranger
To this Judge Van X. Paterson had replied,
in substance. that, If Mr. Oelrichs would con-
test the pencil will, there would be no op-
position to his being appointed the guardian
OF his own child:
If Mr.. oelrchs b ad done what conceive 10 be
his Duty IL had ed n contest of the pencil will,
1 would not interfere with tne management of his
son. 1 think Mr. oelrichs ought 10 have
brought this contest, and, If he had done SO,
would not be here asking to be allowed to make it,
have subperaed MR. Oerichs TO come here and
stae whether he meant to make a contest of the
pencil will, but AS he had TO go 10 New York on
business agreed TO take the admission of counsel
in the matter.
To this invitation to define his and his
clients attitude in relation 10 the pencil will,
the mothers attorney replied:
The Will of september "a was submitted to Mrs
Oelrichs, 10 her sitter and 20 all interested. ana
they all concurred that 1t in Mr. Fairs writing
and is his Will. Believing that, Mr.. Oelrichs
does he does not believe It is his duty to contest
the will. lie has examined the surrounding and
does not believe !. necessary TO file a contest
The court thereupon ordered the statement
OF the attorney to be incorporated part of
ihe evidence In the case, and there it remains
TO this day.
Thus did the attorney of Mrs Oelrichs con-
sent that her child's guardianship should be
awarded 10 stranger rather than that she or
ne should, Tor q moment, appear to call in
doubt the gen nuineness of the pencil will.
fausing here 10 cast a backward look upon
the history OF these proceedings, IL appears
that, up TO this point, The children were in ac-
cora upon three things-frst, that the estate
must De freed from any trust; secondly, that
tne pencil will was genuine, beyond cayil, and
Mrs. craven, who produced il, "a lady widely
ana fayorably known in this city, "a great
lrlend OF senator Fair" and "Mrs. Haskins,
tne other witness to the WILL very respecta-
pie lady thirdly, that The trustees and execu-
tors named in the trust will were designing
persons and "consprators." who, having
,combinad and confederated together" had
imposed upon the testator in order the more
safely 10 plunder his estate.
HOW these convictions came to undergo
change, and why these parties We're subse-
euentiy brought to delounce the pencil Will
as spurious, TO arraign Mrs Craven as forger
and Mrs Haskius as q perjurer. and 10 look
upon the above mentioned designing per-
SONS SONS ana "conspirators" as worthy men, to
Whom they were eager 10 confde the admins
ytration OF their estate, the facts now to be
stated will show
About six weeks after the filing of the con-
'nS "a ust Will, anu, on the lOln OF June,
&C ao59, a. an aelon was instituted in the interest
oI the children to have declared the trust
feature of that will void
Inc executors and trustees having in their
answer set up and relied upon the trust will
CharIes L; Fair signed and swore to an affidavit
~ Whlch ne set forth on his oath that he did
uShy tne genuineness OF the said alleged will
OF Septem Der 81, 1S94'-the trust will
Ai.er lapse of seven months, this court. on
.ne !il 90 OF February, 1896. held that the trust
III iue trust VIII, so far at least as 1t affected
real estate was void
On the 10Th of the following month Charles