The herald., 1898-09-28
A DEED and ITS FILINGS
SENSATIONAL CHARGES IN SUIT
OF EMERY VS.. EMERY
BOTH PARTIES ALLEGE FRAU D
An Insurance Man Falls From Grace
and Is Charged With Embezzle-
men-Golden Cross Troubles

A suit of more than usual interest, one
In which charges of fraud were freely
passed between plaintiff and defendant.
was on trial before Judge York in Depart
ment four yesterday. The action is the
result of a family dissatisfaction over the
distribution of property left by Frederick
B. Emery, deceased. Besides the sensa-
tional features in the case, there are points
that are termed niceties of law. The plain
tiffs are Frank Emery, Arlena COX and
Eyeline Weller, children of the deceased
and stepchildren of the defendant Mrs.
Sarah B. Emery.
The plaintiffs allege that on August 9,
1896, Frederick B. Emery died, leaving a
will granting most of his property to the
children of his first wife. The will was
contested by Mrs. Emery. who succeeded
In having the document annulled. and also
in having herself appointed administra-
trix of the estate. Under the new arrange
ment she received half of the property of
her deceased husband, and the remainder
of the estate was divided between her step
children and her own. On February nth
of this year she filed her final report, which
was approved by the court.
Shortly after the filing of her report the
plaintiffs brought the present action to
secure, a part of twenty acres OF land IN
Rancho Los Cerritos and their interest In
two lots, valued at $1,000, near Long Beach
They claim that on February %, 1889. the
twenty acres in question was decided to
f r. Emery by George Osborne, and that
IN the final account there is no men tom
made of the property. which is quite val
liable.
Mrs Emery denies that the property was
decided to her husband, and states that
Osborne, at the request of Mr.. Emery.
decided the property to her. 1t Is matter
~ record that the property is now record
ed as part of the estate of F. B. Emery
The defendant claims that the deed was
recorded January I, 1889, and that 1t was
then recorded in favor of herself She
does not deny that the property is now re-
corded in her husbands name, but says
that shortly after the first filing the deed
was stolen, and 1t was, on June Z, 1882 re-
recorded In favor of F. b. Emery
This statement Is In, measure substan-
tfated by the record on the deed itself.
The document shows that the initials have
been changed from S. B. to F. B., and on
the margin is a note whiclt says: RE
acknowledged to make grantee read F. B.
Emery in place of S. B. Emery
Bv the change of the first letter the
property is thrown back into the estate.
and should have been divided by her ac-
cording 10 the laws. The question for the
court to decide will be whether or not there
was any fraud connected with the second
transaction.
This suit is by no means the first trouble
between Mrs Emery and her stepchildren.
The first disagreement dates back to Janu-
ary. 1894 In that month MIR. Emery deed
ed all his property to his wife, including
s44OO In the bank. A few months later the
plaintiff Frank A. Emery. induced his
father to destroy the deeds and make a
will in favor of the children by the first
wife. In September, 1895, Frank came into
court and asked to be appointed guardian
of his father. This request was blocked by
Mrs. Emery, who filed a protest, stating
that if a guardian was to be appointed
she wanted to be the one. The court IA
vored her request. ane she was appointed
to the guardianship.
All this time Mrs. Emery claims that she
was blssfully ignorant of the will and also
that the deeds had been destroyed. When
Emery died the will was offered for pro-
bate. but was not accepted.
As to the $440O. given by her husband to
her. Mrs Emery purchased the lots IN
Long Beach which the plaintiffs are now
seeking to have declared part of the estate.
The suit was only fairly started yester-
day, and will be continued today.