The San Francisco call., 1897-04-10
MRS, CRAVEN WINS
HER MAIN PO|N I
Will Obtain a Trial on the
18th of This
Month.
1t Is Not Thought Probable That
Further De ay Can Be
Secured.
D. M. D1lmas Presented a Strong
Array Of Authorities Against
Miss Fairs Intervention.

Mrs. Nettie r. Craven's desire for a
speedy trial of the case brought against
her by the managers of the Fair estate
was again made manifest in Judge
Slack's court yesterday. d. M. Delmas,
of the law firm of Delmas & Shortrldge,
representing Mrs Craven, reiterated his
strenuous objections to any modification
of the record that might permit or give
excuse for further delay.
With this aim in view he took up the
argument on the demurrer to the COM
plant in intervention recently filed by
Miss Virginia Fair, daughter Of the late
James G. Fair, in the litigation instituted
By ]. S. Angus and other legal representa-
tives of the Fair estate against Mrs.
Craven.
Mrs. Craven's wish, as expressed by
Mr.. Delmas, is for an cary hearing and
determination of the allegation of forgery
made by the other side in regard to her
deeds to certain real estate. She protests
that they are genuine and regular in
every respect and for long time she has
been clamoring for trial on that issue,
announcing that she Is eager to have her
documents put to the test and solemnly
stand or fall
Just as she supposed that she was about
to reach trial of the case and the Jurors
tor determining the question were ecIually
In attendance and answered to their
names for that purpose an attempt was
made by the opposition to change the
status OF the proceedings in such a way
that the case would be changed TO pro-
ceedings In chancery, and she would be
deprived OF her constitutional right of
trial by jury.
AGAINST this modification of the record,
with its attendant denial of his clients
legal rights, Mr.. Delmas presented an
elaborate array of authorities in support
of his view OF the case.
Mr.. Deimas insisted that under the law
Judge Slack, sitting as Chancellor, may
not entertain this equitable defense as it
is presented by Miss Fair.
The foundation of an action in chan
Gerry lies in the allegation of the orator
that there exists no speedy or adequate
remedy at law. The moment the Cnan-
ceilor learns that an action at law is pend
ing, wherein the same facts are set up, the
Chancellor says to the person: Your allie
CATION in regard TO an equitable defense
is untrue and, therefore, my jurisdiction
in chancery vanlshes.
Mr.. Delmas insisted that under the
original condition OF the pleadings the
representatives of the Fair estate had am
pie opportunity for relief; that all they
had 10 do was to prove the deeds forgeries
and the jury would give verdict for the
other side, and that would end the case
forever. Judgment on hat verdict would
give the other claimants as absolute relief
as If the deeds had been ordered delivered
up and consumed to ashes. why then
this appeal to chancery?" asked the
speaker, and he replied that there was
nothing in it; that you cannot appeal to
chancery you cannot transfer the former;
you cannot deprive the litigant OF his
right of trial by jury when the action al
law will be just as effcacious as in chan
cery." In conclusion MIR. Delmas said
that until case can be found or deci-
sion can be cited to the contrary he would
respectfully submit that his argument has
not been answered.
Judge Slack remarked that he had moth
ing TO add TO his former decision. He
overruei the demurrers interposed by
Delmas d Shortridge and allowed one day
in which TO answer.
Mr.. Delmas replied that the answer
would be filed within an hour, in order
that the proceedings might not be de-
layed. 1t had been remarked in some
quarters that he and his associates had
sought for delay. This was untrue. In
reply to the courts suggestion that an
appeal might be taken from the present
ruling Mr.. Dslmas said that such appeals
might indefinitely put off the trial He
recalled the fate of the Blythe case that
was begun in 1884 and is now just reach.
ing the threshold of the United States Su-
preme Court. He did not like the pros
pecJ.
1t was agreed that on the 18th inst. ar
gument shall be heard in regard to calling
4 jury to assist the Chanc cellor as to sre-
cial findings of fact, and that the trial of
the case shall begin on the 10Th inst.