The San Francisco call., 1898-06-18
Mrs. Gordon Accused of BIackmailing.
COUNSEL ALSO ATTACKED
CONTESTANT ALLEGED TO HAVE
 NO VALID CLAIM.
Her Attorneys, However, State That She Will Establish Her Case
 Without Difficulty.

The atmosphere surrounding the con- test of Clara Augusta Gordon for a share Of the riches left by John D. Wilson, an Oakland capitalist. is getting extremely tropical. and the bailiR in Judge Troutt s court where a motion ill the case was argued yesterday and the day before expects that before the trial is ended he will have the pleasure of separating com batting lawyers. The argument was on Q motion to dismiss the petition of Clara Augusta Gordon. which asks for the re- vocation of the order made over year ego admitting the last will or the de- ceased capitalist to probate.
 Mrs. Gordon, on behalf of her children, who, she claims, are those Of John E Wilson. seeks to break the will; She says deceased often acknowledged that he was their father and provided TOT them until influences were brought to bear upon him not long before his death, causing him to neglect them in his will. She was mar ried to Wilson by justice Of the peace under the name of Gordon, she also al leges when she was of the opinion that he was a single man, but later found that such was not the fact. She also ayers that Wilson acknowledged the children before Attorney M. C. Chapman of Oak land. but in an affidavit filed yesterday he denies that such is a fact Chapman in his affidavit testified that he never knew Clara Augusta Gordon prior to an occa- sion when she visited him at his office to consult him regarding her claims against her. but she stated that she had called at the request of Robert F. Simpson. She visited him prior to the death of Captain Wilson, but he did not inform her, as she stated, that Captain Wilson had called and made out a written acknowledgement of the child and did not state that he would compromise the case for her. Mrs. Gordon never told him that she was will ing to have the case compromised, as al legged. nor did she state to him that for his sake" (referring to Captain Wilson, and the sake of our children that she preferred that the matter be settled with out publicity. A day or two following this meeting Mrs. Gordon again called and informed him that Robert F. Simp- son had sent her to his (Chapman's) office and that she wanted to know what kind of evidence would be needed to establish a case against the estate of John E. Will son in behalf of illegitimate children of Captain Wilson and herself lie told her that no claim could be asserted against the estate of Captain Wilson in behalf of such children unless Captain Wilson had made q written acknowledgment to the effect that the children were his own
 It is averred by Attorneys Thomas F. Garrity and T. J. Crowley that Wilson did acknowledge the paternity Of the children before Chapman and that Chap man so stated in the presence of number of witnesses.
 The attorneys representing Mrs Wilson also say that when the contest comes to trial they will have no difficulty in eS tabliShing their clients case. They have afldaVitS in their possession from Mrs. Almira Creeseman and Drs Mehrman and Smith, who were present at the birth of two of Mrs. GOrdon'S children. Mrs. Cheeseman testtfies. Attorney Garrity states, that the deceased capitalist was present at the birth Of the children and while fondling them acknowledged their paternity. She further testified that Cap tain Wilson paid her for her services. and 1t is said that the physicians also ac Knowledge receiving their fees from the same source.
 Additional affidavits, it is thought, will Is. r7aI nit +l sl, whole story will not be known to the world until the lips of half a hundred witnesses are unsealed at the trial in open court.
 He also branded letter written by At torney Henry l. Kowalsky, of counsel for Mrs. Gordon. to H. 4. Melvin of Oak land, who was interested in the estate, as blackmailing letter The letter in question simply referred to the condition Of Mrs. Gordon and her children, and urged that something be done in their be- half Wright was persistent in his ar gUment that wicked and criminal infiu- ences were back of the action of the con- testant but It was evident from yester- days proceedings that the court did not hold the same view of the case All the morning Colonel Kowalsky argued In be- half of his client. putting forth, points in her favor except when he would drift away in order to thrust sarcastic remarks at Wright, opposing counsel When At torney kOwalsky had concluded his ar gument on behalf of his client and was about to address the court on the letter referred to by oppos- ing counsel as @ blackmailing letter he was interrupted by Judge Trout, who said
 I have carefully examined the record, Mir. Kowalsky, and have considered the letter writ ten by you in this matter and it Is my opinion that you have done nothing wrong It Is my opinion that the letter is a proper one and that counsel not justified in the interpre tation which he attempted to give 1t.
 Mir Kowalsky bowed his appreciation of the view the court took of the matter argument by Attorney T. J. Crowley, who hotly denounced the methods employed by oposing counsel in an attempt to preju- dice the case of Mrs. Gordon" He said that the only stock in trade in a lawyer S possession with which he could make his accused him of blackmail told a deliber- ate falsehood and that deliberate false hood WAS a lie. He had not been accused of blackn1ail, he continued, but associate counsel and his client had and he took it upon himself to believe that he had been to use the direct words he would like in order to vent his opinion of opposing counSels conduct, but if that gentleman would meet him outside the court room he would do so in a manner not soon to be forgotten. The challenge was not ac- cepted and the bailiff was not called upon to stop a battle of fists in the corridors The case will be submitted to-day and in event the court refuses to grant the mo- ton now before it the case proper will be tried in the near future.
 It is alleged by Wilson's hej.s that the contestant has no valid claim and that the filing of the contest was barred by the statute of limitations and that other ir- regularitieS exist. This, however, is dis - -