The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-04-01

suit which contains many of the ele-
ments OF first-eiass modern society novel.
and In which startling developments may
occur before the trial Is over IL now being
heard before Judge JACOBS in the superior
court. John b. Wright, a weiI-known
young lawyer OF this city. is the plaintiff
and he Is suing the administrator of the
estate of his rich uncle. Capt. Samuel p.
Blair. Of San Francisco. who died last year.
upon note for s25.0o Frank J. Burn. is
the administrator. and he resists the pay
ment OF the note upon the ground that it
either was never executed by the uncle at
all and is a forgery. or was obtained by
and deceit
The nephew contends. and claims he viii
be able to show by a number Of credible
witnesses. that the note was given him by
his uncle as compensation for services rem
dered In the past. and TO be rendered In
the future. In caring for his uncle's prop
er,y in King county.
Wright win further attempt to show
that he was a warm favorite of the old
man from boyhood up. and that there Is
nothing strange in the fact that the latter
should have given him the note. even
had there been no consideration of ser
vices for II.
The only steps taken yesterday were to
mpanel Jury. and though the PLAINTIFFS
attorneys made their statement of the case
TO the jury. they placed no witnesses on
the stand 10 prove 1t before court ad-
1ourned. s. H. Piles counsel for Wright,
Eiade the opening statement. He dwelt
with great particularly upon the intimate
relations existing between Blair and his
nephew. and upon the fact that, as Mr.
Piles said. the old man had told many pso-
pie before the alleged execution of the note
that he intended TO do all he could for the
boy TO help him along. Mr. Piles stated
that Bairs estate in King county was
worth about $500. and in California about
S1ooo0
E. c. Hughes. who is one of the lawyers
for the administrator. IN conversation yes
terday, stated that until he had made his
opening statement. outlining the defense In
the suit. he did not wish to talk about
the details of what the defendant expects
TO prove. lie intimated. however. that the
cd capitalists affection for his nephew
was not OF so fervid a nature as Mr.. Piles
had pictured II, and tina. young Wright
had always taken more interest in his
uncle than the latter had In him. MIR.
Hughes also seemed to think .hat
Wright's alleged services were OF small
value. ard that the note was out OF all
proportion TO their value.
The note was made in August. 1895. pay
able within FIVE years from September.
1884, and Is Gained 70 have been given
in lieu Of n note made by Blair TO Wright
in the fall OF 1894. which was by mutual
agreement destroyed. 1t being in Wright
own handwriting. and the iattsr's lawyers.
1t Is alleged. having advised hin. TO have
the note made out on a regular printed
form. The note IS accompanied by a sepa-
rate written contract In which Wrigh.
agrees with Blair that the note shall
not mature until three days after
the latter's death, IL he shall live
beyond the date OF the maturity
OF the note. The contract IL signed
by Wrghts mother. who is Btair's sister,
as witness The defense claims that the
contract, also was frauduiently obtained
or forged. Wright's lawyers claim that
they VIII show that the contract was
given by Blair to prevent his wife, who
did not entertain the best of feeling for
the Wrigh, family, from knowing that the
note had been given until after his death
The contract contains other provisions
among them one that Wright shall not
sci. the note before IL matures. The in
tefest on the note Is per cent. per aruuru