The San Francisco call., 1898-01-01
QUEER LEGAL
 COMPLICATION Some Fine Law Points
 in the Estate of Waters.
Attorneys Must Prove the Un- soundness and Soundness of
 Mrs. Waters Mind.
Two Cases That Require Opposite Tes- tinnony From the Same Side
 at the Same Time.

By order of court yesterday the de- position of Mrs. Catherine Woods of Ness, Kansas, was opened and it's con- tents were made public.
 Mrs. Woods is the niece of the late Arthur Waters who died in this city, December 31, 1892. and over whose es- tate there has been so much bitter liti- gation. The deposition opened yester- day was taken in the case of Marga- ret Muleahey against Hezekiah Dow and others, to secure a portion of the estate of Arthur Waters, her deceased brother; she was joined by Mrs. Woods, who is the daughter of Thomas Wat CTS, deceased brother of Arthur Wat CTS.
 Arthur Waters died intestate, and when his estate came into the Probate Court it was distributed to his widow, for it was shown that there were no living relatives of Arthur Waters other than his widow. Mrs. Waters died about a year after the death of her husband. and when her will came to probate her nieces and nephews as- sailed it, and it was set aside on the grounds of incompetence and undue in fluence. A new trial was granted, how ever, and the case will come up again in the latter part of January.
 In January of 1896 the sister and the niece and nephew of Arthur Waters learned of the death of their relative, and at the same time they learned that while he had died intestate, his en- tire property had been distributed to his widow, although the law allows her but one-half when there are other rel atives living. They sued for their share, but as Mrs. Waters had long been dead they made her executors de. fendants in the case. Their claim is that they were never notified of the death of their relative, although it was well known at the time that they were living in the East. They therefore seek to have set aside the decree of distri- button and their proper share of Wat CTS estate allotted them from the es- tate of Mrs. Waters. That case, too, is set for the end of January.
 In her deposition, Mrs. Woods tells how she knew of an uncle named Ar thur Woods, who was living in San Francisco, and who frequently corre- Sponded with her grandmother who lived in Burlington, Vt. He had also sent her grandmother money on diff ferent occasions, and she had heard her E should visit him when he went West. She says. too. that her brother did visit her uncle on one occasion when he went to San Francisco.
 She tells further facts to show that she was indeed the niece of Arthur Waters, and that at ths time of his death she was entitled to a niece's share of his estate. She also sets forth that she did not know of his death until early in 1896, when she learned the news from a friend, A. A. Enright. in Burlington.
 The two eases present a peculiar Ie- gal complication. The Dows, execu- tors of the estate of Mrs Waters. are contesting the suit of Mrs. Mulcahey on the ground that the widow at the time the estate of Waters came up for probate was of unsound mind. and that she did not, in fact, know that rel atives of her husband were alive. They are at the same time trying to uphold the will once broken on the ground of unsoundness of mind. which was made at the same time she was probating her husbands estate. If they prove she was of sound mind and there fore establish her will it will natur- ally follow that she knew of her hus- bands relatives and must allow them their share of the property. If it be proved. however, that she was of ,In- sound mind and so did not know of the absent heirs, then her will must falI t before the assaults of her own rela- tives. The two cases will come up in the Superior Court before Judge Slack. the original case on January 1T. and the will case on January 20