The San Francisco call., 1897-08-18
]. I DAVIS WILL
v AS PROBATED
Judge Cofey 0verruled the
Objections of the
Contestants.
Held That the Jury's Verdict
Governed the Question of
Testamentary Intention.
Mrs. Belle Curtis and Miss Lizzie Muir
Give Bonds of $650,OO on Letters
of Administration.

| yerday morning, when George A. knight
! and Charles J. Heggerty presented their
motion to refuse probate to the will not
| withs,anding the verdict OF the jury that
| 1t vas the genuine document that it pre-
signed by Mr.. Davis.
After Mr.. Knight had questioned Juror
Michael Flood and Witness Michael Ryan
uching their conversation outside the
| courtroom. and had learned that it con-
sisted only III polite inquiries on the part
OF Mr.. Flood regarding the condition Of
Mrs. Curtis who tainted in court last
Thursday, Mr. Heggerty began his argu-
ment in favor of the motion to exclude
the will from probate.
Six GROUNDS were presented by Mr.. Heg-
gerty in his opposition to the will, and he
contended that notwithstanding the ver-
dict OF the jury, it was the duty of the
Judge to refuse 10 recognize the document
if 1T appeared that mistake had been
made by the jurors. The formal grounds
were stated as follows:
1. The evidence discloses that the document
propounded as the will of the late Jacob z.
Davis not duiy executed.
2. 1t was not the last Will OF said Davis.
3. The testimony discloses that if it was
ever executed by the hand OF said Davis it
was not intended that 1t should have testa-
mentsry effect, but on the contrary that il
should not have such effect.
4. Said will. if executed, was revoked by
being placed IN the urn which con tanned the
incinerated remains of the wife of the said
Davis.
3. 1t has been demonstrated to a moral GER
taiuty thai the said document is q forgery.
d. That there is contest touching the
validity OF this document now pending in this
court wherein Elizabeth Wilson is the con-
testant, and in the trial just concluded her
fnteres Is in the said estate have not been con-
sidered or ad judicated in any manner, for the
resson that the court ordered the trial to pro-
ceeo for the hearing of the issues raised by
| the contest of Joseph 2. Wilson and Catherine
Stead.
Attorney J. c. Campbell, representing
Mrs. Belle Curtis and Miss Lizzie Muir,
the proponents of the will, objected to the
making of the motion by counsel on the
other side on the ground that the court
was not authorized to hear such a m ton.
Mr.. Heggerty replied that it was the
duty of the Judge to consider certain
things regardless of the verdict of the
jury, and that mainly the court must find
whether the said will was in reality writ
ten by the hand of said Davis and if it
was so written whether it bears on it's face
the animus testandi. II it be lacking in
the testamentary intent ton then it mus.
be denied probate, as that was question
never submitted to the jury and concern
ing which they had nothing to do. The
verdict OF the jury is TO the effect that
they believe Tho paper to have been writ
ten by Jacob q. Davis, but the question of
testamentary intention must be de-
termlned by the court.
When it came to the matter of Mr..
Davis alleged intention to destroy the
will by placing it in the urn containing
his dead wife's ashes Mr.. Heggerty de-
clared that it was Just the same as if the
deceased had written that it belonged 10
the dead and that it should not live 1t
was in law destruction of the paper, he
thought. If the will had been placed in
the urn to test the affections of the young
ladies' who now appear as proponents
| then it was contingent will and must be
so treated.
A spirited colloquv occurred at this
point between Mr.. Heggerty and Mr..
Campbell concerning the anecdote p b.
lished in a local weekly naper, in which it
was stated that historical parallel ex-
listed in the case of the poet Rosetti, who
deposited beautiful poem in the grave of
his dead wife, and that when the coffin
was opened years afterward the scroll was
found in the coils of her golden curls.
you didn't notice that case of a simi.
lar character reported to have happened
in Indiana, did your" asked Mr.. Camp
bell
II read something OF it," replied Mr..
Heggerty.
"And it was reported by the Associated
Press and not by Mr.. Kyrka," continued
Mr.. Campbell.
"Concerning that 7 have no lnforma-
ton" said Mr.. Heggerty, drily.
Judge Coffey arcted his brows quizzi-
calIy as he inquired, Did you have any
IDEA that it was put up for the purposes of
this caseY'
II did not say that, your Honor, but
stranger things have happeDed," was Mr..
Heggerty's closing shot and the argument
went over until the afternoon.
In the afternoon brief reply was made
by the attorneys tor the proponent OF the
Will, after which Judge Coffey denied the
motion of Knight and Heggerty, and sa id
he considered it Lis duty 10 admit the
will to probate.
Alexander BOYD, partner of the de-
ceased, was called as a witness TO prove
the value OF the estate and gave detailed
statement of the pronerty belonging to
he firm o: BOYD & Davis, it being under
stood that Mr.. Davis was owner OF hall of
the assets.
Mr.. Boyd's statement contained the fol-
lowing pieces of property as belonging to
the firm, the figures given representing
the cost price in each instance. 1t is
thought that the property has not ma.
teriaIly advanced since 1t came into the
hands OF Boyd g. Davis. Following is the
statement:
Thurlow block, frontage of 122 feet on
Kearnv street and 81 feet on Sutter, cost
1857, ,658.
On south side of California Street 10 feet
and 126 IS feet on Market, cost $126, ,4S9 81.
Corner of Battery and Pine streets, 45 10
feet on Battery and 1876 feet on Pine, cost
$3.50. 900.
Northeast corner Of Market and Front
streets, 100 by 81 IS feet, cost 1928, 400.
Front-street properly. irregular in shape,
cost $159,O46
Lot on east side of Battery street % by
100 g feet, cost $3.50, 600.
Lot f4O-v ara) cerrer of Second and Folsom
streets, 1877 Is by 275 feet, cost $21S, 621 80
Mr. Boyd gave mass of figures, and it
was difficult for any one except profess
sional bookkeep per to follow the financial
| trail, but it was "athered that the estate of
| the late Jacob q. Davis will foot up 10 less
than 81, 042, 72l so.
| The rents OF the firm of Boyd g. Davis
am cunt to $3.50 mouth. and the interest
! is $2394. which Mr.. Boyd said he Ike ut col :
| lee ed up promptly, az he had found that
| to be the better method. The outstand-
| ing mortgages due the firm are $451, 225,
| all gilt-edged and colectable at a mo-
ments warning.
| Attorney ". d. Treadwell made a cal
1 ~