The San Francisco call., 1897-04-06
SEMI-CENTENNIAl-
IN The FAIR CASE
Half a Hundred Continu-
ances Have Been
Granted.
Mr.. Dslmas Insisted on a
Speedy Trial for Mrs.
C.aven.
Attorneys for the Opposition Joined
in Asking for More Delay and
Won Their Point.

Another continuance in the Fair. Craven
itigationI
1t was granted yesterday on the desire
OF attorneys for those representing the
r air estate and the heirs at law.
1t was the fiftieth continuance in the
case and may be fifty celebrated by those
VINO enjoy these postponements as the
semi-ce centennial Of the tally of contin.
uances that will doubtless reach par if all
The parties to the controversy live long
enough.
Nnen the full hundred is touched then
the centennial ceremonies may be pro-
V1oed Tor and TO mark the event another
distribution OF proceeds of the estate may
be looked for, provided the funds hold
out.
Public interest in this litigation never
hags. AS judicial spectacular it is a
drawing card. This truth received adoI-
tlonal illustration yesterday by the eager
crowd OF lawyers and citizens in Judge
Siack's court in anticipation of his
Honor's decision of several important {
points in the suit of the executors of
James G. Fairs will against Mrs. Nettie
R. Craven.
As usual Judge Slack had long calen-
OAR In probate and insolvency proceed
lngs. yet the people sat patiently through
TWO hours and a half of tedious legal
wrangllng in order 10 listen to the judicial
opinion touching the question of i'm panel
ing jury to assist Juuge Slack in decid-
Ing issues of fact. and, secondari.y, as to
the motion of Delmas & Shortridge, attor-
neys for Mrs. Craven, TO strike Miss Vlr-
glnia Fairs complaint in Intervention
from the files of the case.
1t was high noon when the Judge began
TO READ his opinion. vet there was mo
diminution OF the audience and the closest
possible attention was given to every word
that fell from the lips from the beginning
to the end.
A succinct history of the litigation was
presented by Judge Slack in the opening
portion OF his opinion. He casually ore "
attention to the fact that the action was
begun on June %, 1896, by James s. Angus,
Thomas 6. Crothers and W. S. sGoodfel-
low, as surviving special administrators of
the estate OF James G. Fair, deceased,
against Nettie r. Craven, Marc Leving-
ston, George r. Williams, Stephen
Roberts, Elizabeth Haskins and several
others sued under fictitious names.
On July . 1896. the defendants George
f. Williams Stephen Roberts and Eliza
beth Hasklns fled a disclaimer, and on
August II, 1896, the default of the de-
1endant Marc Levlngston was entered.
The defendant Nettie Z. Craven on July
z, 1896, filed an answer7and also cross
complaint in eiectments to recover the
possession OF The lands described in the
complaint and for rents. profits and dam
ages. To this cross-com plant the
plaintiffs, on August 3, 1896. FLED an
answer consisting OF admissions and de-
mails. After thus stating the inception OF
the suit the court adds:
While the pleadings were in this condi ton
stipulation was entered into between the at
torneys for the plaintiffs and the attorneys for
the defendant, Nettie r. Craven, by which it
was agreed that the faction" should be set for
trial for February 2, 1897, "and that the same
be tried before jury, if either party shall ten
days before said date give and file a written
request for jury" In due time. on January
%, 1897, the attorneys for the defendant, Net
tie r. Craven, filed writing by which they
request and demand jury for the trial Of
said cause The case appeared on the calen-
was postponed.
In the meantime the will of James G. Fair
was admitted to probate, and the plaintiff.
were appointed executors. The plaintiffs
having Obtained order permitting them
selves to be substituted in the action as
filed, on February %, 1897, a supplemental
complaint The supplemental complaint al
leges that on December %, 1894, James G.
Fair was the owner in fee simple, and in the
possession, of two described pieces of land; !;
that on said DAY and while he the owner
in fee simple of the lands, James G. Fair died
leaving last will; that on January 2 1895,
the plaintiffs, together with one Louis C.
Bresse, were appointed special administrators
powers; that the special administrators
Immediately qualified and took and
retained possession of all of the estate of the
deceased, including the lands in question un-
til April %, 1896, when Louis @. Bresse died,
since which time until November 16, 1896.
the plaintiffs, as surviving special administra-
tors, continued in possession that on June 23 :,
1896, this court authorized the plaintiffs as
surviving special administrators, 10 commence
this action; that on November 16, 1896, the
last will of James G. Fair was admitted to
probate and the plaintiffs were appointed
and qualified as executors; and that since
ber IL, 1896, the plaintiffs, as such ex-
ecutors have continued in the possession and
management of ell the estate OF the deceased,
including the lands in controversy, and have
collected and received, and are now collecting
and receiving, the rents, issues and profits OF
Eaid lands, amounting to the sum OF $4,000 per
month7or thereabouts.
The supplemental complaint proceeds to al
lege in language substantially the same
contained in the original complaint that the
deeds under which the defendants claim title
are forced and simulated and ought to be
Cancelled.
The prayer of the supplemental complaint
also Conforms substantially TO the prayer of
the original com plant.
The answer and cross-complaint OF the
defendant, Nettie II. Craven, filed on February
25, 1897, to the supplemental complaint, are
similar to the answer and cross-complaint filed
by her to the original complaint.
The eross-complaint is in the ordinary form
of a complaint In ejectment Italegns that on
January 2, 1895, the defendant, Nettie r.
Craven, was the owner, and seized in fee and
in the possession OF the lands described In the
supplemental CONF plaint; that ON January z,
1895, the plaintiffs were appointed spec,al
administrators of the estate OF James G. Fair,
deceased, with certain powers; that thereupo1
they qualified as such, and that their special
letters were never modified, revoked
or set aside until November 16, 1896;
that on November 16. 1896, an instru-
ment, purporting 10 be the last
will of James 9. Fair, was admitted TO probate,
and the plaintiffs were appointed and quail
fed as exeeu tors thereof, and have ever since
executors; that on January 2, 1895, while the
defendant was such owner and so seized and
entitled to the possession OF the premises, the
plaintiffs. acting such special Gdministra-
1ors. without right or tile, did enter into ana
upon the premises, and did oust and eject the
Defendant therefrom; that thereafter. until
November TO, 1896, the plaintiffs, as such
special administrators have withheld and
still withhold the possession thereof from the
defendant, To her damage in the sum OF $2OO,-
600; and that the value OF the rents and
profits OF the premises, from and after January
z. 1895, is, has been and will continue to be
10000 per month.
answer 10 the sscom plaint in which, as In
their answer 10 the original cross-com piaint,
they deny all of Mrs. Craven's allegations.
The decision necessarily contained many
quotations from former pleadipgs, going
over subjects already familiar to the read
ing public. After setting forth the condi-
tIons that prevailed up 10 the time of the
filing of Miss Fairs bill ia Intervenor the
court said:
Sour days after the answer to the cross