The herald., 1897-08-04

| to in the presence of the decedent, anc
at his request, nor did said, decedent de.
clare to the witnesses that he published
the document as his last will and teAta.
ment.
Those are the grounds Of the widow.
opposition to the probating of the. will
and perusal of the document flee
causes feeling of relief at finding M
claim that the late Nicholas c. Creedt
was "of unsound deposing mind" at the
time the Will was executed That is sc
usually incorporated in the contest to q
Will that there seems an absence of sym
metry and lacking of old familia.
clauses about the particular form of con.
test filed
While the validity of the will is the
most potent question in all the legal
wrangling, there does not appear, to the
lay mind any very particular indication
that the document will be very seriously
challenged. The legal fight appears to
be circling around the head of the infant
heiress. Mrs. Louisa Creede wants pos
session of the child, albeit it is claimed
she never adopted her; Mrs Edith Bash
ofrd mother of Edith Dorothy, who sur
rendered her claims when the child was
adopted by the retired mine owner,
wants to enforce rights which originally
inhere in every mother but which she,
like every other mother who suffers her
child to be adopted by strangers, volun-
tarily and absolutely yielded up. Last
of all, William Phifer, brother-in-law of
the deceased, wants to have charge
of Edith Dorothy, and as he has her in
his posse ssion now it looks as if he was
prepared to make good, hard fight be-
fore he surrenders her to anyone else.
In this matter of the estate and guar
dianship of Edith Dorothy Creede, John
7. Jones, attorney for the estate, filed
the opposition of William Phifer to the
petition of Mrs Edith S. Bashford. the
child's mother
Mr.. Phifer is the appointed guardian
of the person and estate of the child by
the will, and. he opposes the petition of
the mother for the following reasons:
THAT the said Edith S. Bashford re-
linquished the sole care and custody of
Edith Dorothy Creede then known as
Edith Dorothy Hit walker) to N. c.
Creede on or about August l, 1895, said
child being then of the age of about 6
months, and thereafter, on the 9Th of
September, 1895, by judgment and or
der duly made by the superior court of
Los Angeles county, upon the petition of
N. c. Creede, with the due and legal
consent of his wife, Louisa Creede and
the said Edith S. Bashford, the child
was declared the adopted child of N. C.
Creede. with all the rights and subject
to all the duties of that rela ton, and that
judgment has ever since and is now in
full force, effect and final"
Mr.. Phifer proceeds to set forth that
since that time Mrs. Bashford has never
had the care or custody of the child, but
it remained under the sole care of N. c.
Creede until the time of his decease,
and since that time has been under the
sole custody of the contestant. On July
7th, 1897, the will of N. c. Creede, father
of Edith Dorothy, made his last will in
due form of law, and that will is still in
full force and effect and unrevoked.
That by its terms the contestant is ap-
pointed the guardian of the person ana
property of Edith Dorothy. That he
has accepted said trust and guardian
ship of the child and is ready and will
ling, upon the admission of the will to
probate, to carry out the trust according
to the terms of the will, and the contest
ant announces his readiness to quality in
any sum that may be required by order
of the court, in the event of bond be-
ing required.
said contestant" Mr.. Phifer con-
tinues, "avers upon information and be-
lief that the object of said Edith S. Bash
ford in seeking letters is not out of re-
gard for the welfare and interest of said
child, but to secure control of the valu
able estate bequeathed and devised to
said child, and to prevent the confirma-
ton by said superior court of the ap-
pointment of contestant as testament
airy guardian after the said will shall
be admitted to probate.
Contestant AYERS that it is not now
necessary or convenient that a guardian
other than contestant have the custody
and care of the person and estate of said
child, and AYERS that the said child is
now properly cared for and maintained
by contestant.
Wherefore contestant prays that the
said petition of Edith S. Bashford be de-
MED"
There is fighting material in all this
to satisfy the most fastidious, but some
OIL lneSe lllllSS are pIdCtiCdlly super
f1uous at the present time. For instance,
it is not possible that family allowance
be granted for the Creede estate is, as
in the case of every deceased person,
at a deadlock until an administrator is
appointed. Each point of contest fund
amentally rests upon the validity of the
will, and if any one was taken up by the
court the validity of that document
would necessarily have to be passed
upon. That being so, the vital question
may as well be taken up first and dis
posed of; unless, indeed, special ad-
ministrator should be appointed and in
that case some one quite outside the in
| fuences of the case would fill the posi-
| ton just as we'll as any inside party.
| THE FRUIT CASE