The San Francisco call., 1897-02-27
MANEUvERS
FOR DELAY
Another PoStponement in
the Big Pencil Deeds
Case.
. OF MANY FAIR LAWYERS
ONE rs ILL.
Craven Attorneys Make a Vigor.
GUS but Vain Fight
for Trial.
SOME hot SHOT FOR BONANZA
INTERESTS.
The Heirs of the Millionaire Accused
of Questionable Tactics 10
Delay Matters.
SOME HOT SHOT FOR BONANZA
INTERESTS.
The Heirs of the Millionaire Accused
of Questionable Tactics 10
Delay Matters.

OF the army Of lawyers in the employ of
the Fair millions one is sick, and the great
litigation bas for this reason come 10 a
standstill again. Despite the strenuous
opposition of her attorneys the fight be-
tween Mrs. Craven and the representatives
of the bonanza kings estate on the pencil
/. deeds has been again postponed, this time
until March 10.
1t is w. NJ. Pierson who is the invalid,
and in addition to stopping the progress
of the case temporarily his illness has set
tied piece of legal etiquette.
Judge Slack heard atfidavits of his part
ner, R. B. Mitchell, and DR.. Luke Robin
son yesterday morning. and learned that
Pierson occupies the distinction OF being
The LEADING counsel in the galaxy of legal
talent that has been in the employ of the
Fair estate for the past two years.
In vain Mrs. Craven's attorneys fought
. against further delay. They were ready
and anxious to try out the big case at once.
1t was useless that they rem EN- bered that
there were almost q score of big lawyers
raking care of the Fair interests in addi-
ton to Pierson. DeImas narrated the re-
peated excuses made by the attorneys who
are fighting the pencil deeds. He recalled
that the Fair people had advertised il far
and wide that the case against the pencil
deeds so plain that it amounted 10 a
mathematical and ocular demonstra-
ton" The other side had no appetite
for arithmetic.
The proceedings yesterday we're argu-
mentatlVe on q motion on behalf of the
FAIR estate 10 continue the case on ac-
count OF Persons illness. The Craven
side fought bitterly against the delay.
81 will state" said Attorney Delmas.
after Mitchell! had told Judge Slack of
Persons illness and urged it as the
ground of delay, ''that Mr. Mitchell COM
municated with me on Fe February or ga
request that | should consent TO q con-
tinuance of the trial for one week on ac-
count Of the absence of his partner, Mr.
.Pierson in New York. and who would not
be back Until March Is. This request l
positively declined 10 accede to- and so
informed Mr. Mitchell. On the same day
was served with a notice signed by the
attorneys for the plaintiffs that they would
move the court at . o'clock of the same
day TO reset the case, or TO continue it
until the 23d of February. | came to this
court for the purpose OF opposing that mo-
ton. Mr.. Mitchell then appealed to me
personally, as matter of courtesy to him
and TO his firm. stating that Mr.. Pierson
was absent in New York upon important
matters and could not possibly be back IL
time to try the case, and assured me that
II L consented to that continuance they
continuance.
and he went so far as to state that if we
applied for a continuance he would op-
pose il.
Upon that assurance I consented to a
continuance for one week, and it was dis
tlncty understood and stated at the time
both by Mr.. Pierson ard myself and in
the presence OF Mr.. McEnerney that no
. further continuance would be applied for.
We consequently prepared for trial for the
23d OF this month, and were then ready
and deslrous to go on with the trial of the
case. AT that time we were met with
what seemed to m to be violation of the
agreement entered into and by means of
which the continuance had been secured,
or the consent for the continuance had
been secured, by motion for continu-
ance Tor one week on the ground OF Mr..
Persons sickness. The court at that time
continued the case for one week, announc.
ing, as l understood it. that counsel rnust
hen be prepared, as the court would grant
no further continuance. We have since
that time renewed our preparation for the
trial OF the case, and are, and will be.
ready to go on at the time set for it, next
week
Now. so far as Pierson has had the ex
elusive charge of this suit for the firm l
would state that Mr.. R. B. Mitchell. his
partner, has been present and actively
participated In every important proceed
ing that has taken place in this case, and
himself has personally taken the deposi-
tlons OF the chief witnesses, or many of
the chief witnesses for the defense, to
wit, Miss Margaret Craven, Mr.. Stephen
Roberts and Mrs. Haskins, and others
that l could recall by taxing my memory,
but do not now re member. / will state
iurtner that l am informed and bell eve
that MIR. McEn rney, now present in
court, and one OF The counsel for the
plaintiffs. is iuiIy prepared and has COM
plete knowledge of every essential fart aud
of every detail of every essential fact
necessary for the presentation of the case
of the plaintiffs, and I would add to that
which is hardly neces sary in this court
that Mr.. McEnerney, in point of legal
ability 10 Try this case, is inferior to no
member OF this or any other bar.
Il will state further that 1 am informed.
and The gentleman who informs me is my
assistant, Mr. Britain, who probably is in