The San Francisco call., 1897-06-15

usually had strong pulse and often
boasted of 1t, so when IL stopped 1t was all
the more noticeable. He said to get pen
and paper quick, as he wanted me to
write something for him. | went into the
next room, that was occupied by the ladies',
and got some paper. 1t was in a box, as is
usual with paper used by ladies. They
were not in the room at that moment, as
they had gone 10 breakfast. When | went
back | closed the door, as l did not know
what Mr.. Davis wanted to say. and as 1t
was deathbed statement did not pro-
pose that anybody should hear it unless
he wanted them to do so. l could not get
pen, and so used my PENCIL, holding the
paper on my knee"
Mr.. Senderhng gave the contents of The
writing, reading from the original, the
purport of which has already been puo-
lished in The CALL. 1t is IN the form of a
bargain and sale deed, purportins to con-
vey TO Mrs. Isabelle Curtis and Miss
Elizabeth NJ. Muir the property known as
the Davis nome on Post street, and the
valuable piece OF property on KeaTny
street that is generally called the Thur
low block Before this could be finished
| he grew too faint to speak, and Mr.. Send
erIing opened the door and called in the
young women, telling them that he be-
leved their uncle was dying. He recog-
nized them, and MIR. Senderling hastene1
to the hotel office and sent carriage for
doctor. On his return he found Mr.. Davis
unconscious. A short time afterward he
passed away. That was at o'clock on
Wednesday morning, the latter part of
October, 1896.
Mr.. Ssnderling testif ID that he read the
writing made at Mr.. Davis dictation 10
the ladies Immediately after the death of
Mr.. Davis. He could not remember all
that was done and said for he reason that
he was so much excited that he did not
take notice of all that was passing.
The contestants of the will contend that
Mr.. Senderlinc's testimony is important,
as they think that the sick man knew that
he was dying and that if he had made a
will and left it in the urn containing his
wifes ashes he would have been apt TO
have tod his friend where it was de-
posted, instead of attem pJing with his
last breath to deed to the persons men,
toned in the will a portion of the prop
erty bequeathed to them in his last docu-
ment
To offset this presumption it is pointed
out that after Mr.. Davis made a will be-
queathing all his property to his wife, who,
however, dled before he did, lie also made
deed conveying TO her his entire estate,
just as he had begun to DO in behalf of
MS nieces, when death put forth the cold
hand and ended the transaction.
In seeking motive for Mr.. Davis &C
ton in this regard, it is explained that he
preferred TO have mis- property transferred
by deed If he could so arrange it, as he
feared that would be wastefully handled
if it got into the hands of the lawyers
concerning the ajority of whom he had
an opinion not any too omplimentary.
On cross-examiuation, the will offered
in probate was handed to Mr.. Senderhng,
and he was asked if it was in the hand
writing of the late Jacob u. Davis. He re-
piled that he thought 1t was, but he was
not pre- pared to swear positively.
Replying to MIR. Knight, the witness
said he had never seen a letter from Mr..
Davis in which the name Jacob was used.
The signature was usually made ~. q.
Davis "