The San Francisco call., 1897-04-06

(coburn VS.. Smart, 5s CAL, 742; Thompson VS..
Huron Lumber. Company. Wash, 600) The
case of Smith VS.. Gale. 144 U. s., 500. which
holds to the contrary, that the application
may be refused because OF unreasonable delay,
even though made before the trial, is based
upon the case of Hacker VS.. Kelley. Ia Cal.
164, decided under a statutory provision dif-
ferent from the section of the code above
| the bar, who makes application for leave to in
| tervene four days after the issues joined
in the principal suit and three days before the
case was to be called for trial, cannot be said
| TO have been guilty of unreasonable delay.
1t is also contended that the proceedings in
intervention, If per rmitted to stand, will re-
not be done; Gaines VS.. Page. Is La
Ann, I08; Taylor vs.. Boedicker. y
ID, 70: Van Gorden vs., ormsby,
4 Railway, 75 Id, 722: Kassing VS.. Walter,
65 n. w, s32 Uowa); Eccles VS.. Hill,
13 Texas, 81; Ragland VS.. Wisrock, 81
is based upon special statutory provisions:
(Ls. Rev. Code of Pr. Art. 191; McClain's Ann.
Code OF Iowa, Sec 3S90). The rule, however,
has its limitations 1t does not apply to the
necessary delay in reaching issues on the
complaint in intervention, but only to such
delays as continuances to procure evidence.
The motion 10 strike the complaint in inter-
vention from the files must, for these reasons.
be denied.
The close of Judge Slack's remarks was
the signal for another struggle on the part
of attorneys opposed to Mrs. Craven to
see which could offer the most poten t
reason for further delay.
Attorney Charles S. Wheeler intimated
that 1t was luncheon time, and said that
though he wished to offer certain sug-
gestions to the court In opposition to the
calling CT jury to assist the chancellor
at this time, yet he would prefer to take
up the subject at o'clock in the after
noon, so a recess was taken until that
time.
In the afternoon another gathering of
lawyers and citizens filled Judge Slack's
courtroom, and The interest was unabated.
The Judge looked inquiringly at Mr..
Wheeler, and that gentleman somewhat
bashfully began to tell why he did not
think it wise to call in a jury at this stage
OF the proceedings, but he had not got far
in his halting argument before he paused,
and with evident EN- barrassment said that
it had just occurred TO him that no ans wer
to Miss Fairs interve u tion had been filed
by Mrs. Craven.
81 was not unmindful of that fact" re-
marked Judge Slack dryly.
Mr.. Delmas asked that the answer be
considered filed, and that the matter be
proceeded with at once. He desired to
avoid delay.
The court was still looking quizzically
at Mr.. Wheeler.
There were signs of baking on Mr..
w Heeier part, put Juuge olacK Inlioiy
insisted that certain suggestions had been
promised for the after-luncheon session,
and he would like to hear them.
At length Mr.. Wheeler appealed to the
court asking that he be excused from
further remarks until after Mrs. Craven's 8
answer to the suit in Intervention has
been filed.
Mr.. Delmas again protested against this,
saying that it would only cause vexa:ious
and Improbable delay, and that as the
answer would be simple denial, it might
be considered in.
Mr.. Wheeler's embarrassment was be-
coming painful, and the court at last
granted the relief so vehemently sought
by him.
Then another plan for putting off the
trial was disclosed. Mr.. McEnerney
stated that Mr.. Angus and the other
trustees under the Will do not admit Miss
Fairs ownership OF the property and that
he as attorney for the trustees, would file
an answer to her complaint.
Mr.. Delmas said that this course was
rightfully open to Mr.. McEnerney's
clients, and that Mrs. Craven might
answer or demur or might decline 10 act
altog with respect TO the SUIT in in
tervention. H. would not be held re-
sponsible, however, Tor the result OF mac
tion.
Mr.. Delmas said it was recognized that
the court had not passed on the sufficiency
of the complaint, but Mrs. Craven hesi-
tated to file demurrer lest it might inter
fere with the trial of the main issue.
1t was agreed that all opposing parties
shall answer or demur within forty-eight
hours, and that the suggestions of
Wheeler against the calling in of Jury
shall be heard next Thursday.
Formal orders were made for the partial
Distribution of the bequests provided in
the will, including $1,000 to Herbert
Clarke, $4,000 for J. s. Angus, S14, 500 for
the estate of Mr. Bresse, SIC, 600 for James
Fair, $50. 900 for Archbishop Riordan,
$40, 600 FOR minor heirs represented by at
torney Van r. PateI son, 500. 727 for Wesley
Crothers and other small legacies bring
ing the total up TO about 5000 900. 1t was
ascertained that the estate has plenty OF
money on hand and that the bequests
may be paid without inconvenience.
Then Mr.. Wheeler arose and said that
he wished to press the petition of the
children of James G. Fair that all the real
property owned by the deceased be dis
tributed to them directly and immedi-
ately.
Mr.. Delmas objected to any such action
touching the real property claimed by the
client represented by himself and Mr..
Shortridge.
Judge Slack thought it would compli-
cate matters TO include the disputed lots
In such an order OF distribution, and Mr..
Wheeler abandoned that point.
1t remains to be seen what plea for Sc
curing more delay will be thought up by
the opponents of Mrs. Craven between
now and next Thursday.