The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-04-29
SUPREME COURT.
RULING OF JUDGE SLACK IN THE
FAIR WILL TRUST
Practically Sustained by a Decision
in Parallel Case From Ne
vada County.

SAN FRANCISCO, April 2S.-The
Supreme Court has rendered a decision
in the suit of Bennalach VS.. Richard ct
al, from Nevada County, which is a
parallel case, which practically sus-
tainS the decision of Judge Slack on
the validity of the trust which James
G.. Fair attempted to create by his
WILL
1t will be remembered that the first
battle in this great legal contest was
over the trust will of September y
1891. That contest was distasteful to
the children of Fair and they united
their forces to break down the trust
Charles Fair commenced a suit to test
its Validity, and Judge Slack decided
that no legal trust had been created by
that document
The will, in effect, devised the estate
to four trustees, to hold until the death
OF the last of his three children and
then convey to certain heirs. 1t was
merely a trust to hold and convey and
Judge Slack decided that no such trust
can legally be created in real estate
under our statutes. Under this deci-
sion Fair could have created a trust Ito
sell the real estate and apply the pro-
ceeds to certain purposes or he could
have created a trust to mortgage or
lease the real estate for the benefit of
legatee, but he could not create valid
trust merely to hold and convey as he
attempted to do.
The distinction between the offenses
of grand larceny and petit larceny to-
day received consideration at the
hands of the Supreme Court. Harry
McElroy and James Shaw were CO.
laborers on a farm in Tulare County,
and slept in the open air near each
other. Upon retiring Shaw placed his
trousers containing ST. beneath his
head, and during the night McElroy
took the money. He was informed
against and convicted of grand larceny.
The defendant appealed, claiming that
the section of the code under which he
was convicted was not the proper one,
for, he contends, he did not take any
property from the person of another"
The Supreme Court holds that the
view is correct, in that a mans bed is
no part of his person; and, while re-
versing the judgment of the lower
court, it says that it does not feel that
the defendant should be discharged
under the faulty information, but there
seems to be competent evidence OBJ
tainable to convict him of petit lar
ceny.
The Supreme Court to-day passed
upon several of the provisions of the
Act Of 1880 relative to street improve
ments and usually termed the Vrooman
Act The City Council of Stockton
called for bids for grading certain
streets, and the bid of Contractor Nc
Carthy was the lowest presented, but
the council set aside the award to
him, letting it to Contractor Owens. J..
Simon became delinquent in his assess
ment for the work, and suit was
brought against him by the contrac-
tors. The defense was that the work
was not properly constructed. and that
the council did not have the power to
set aside the award to Mccarthy.
The Supreme Court decides that the
City Council had the power to deter
mine If Mccarthy was a responsible
bidder. and that upon it's action in
proclaiming that he was not there was
no appeal; also that the defendant lost
his right Of contest in not appealing to
the City Council within thirty DAYS
after the completion of the work upon
MS statement that the work was not
performed according to specifications.