Eureka weekly sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1887-1902, 1898-01-22
CAPRON WILL CONTEST
The Jury Returns n Verdict for the
stepdaughters.

The Jury Returns n Verdict for the
stepdsuEhters.
The first chapter of this important con
test is ended. The trial lasted over forty
days, and q vast amount Of testimony was
introduced for consideration Of court and
Jury, the bulk OF IL tending to establish
.he mental condition OF Cspron ct the time
he executed the will filed by Judge Fisz.
gerald.
Under this will, which was written by
Capron himself, the estate was 10 be divi-
ded in the following manne
To his s~tepdsugh.er, Hattie Kearney, the
Harriet ranch In Santa Clara county /; to
his s~tepdaughter, Margaret Msnion, q lot
in San Jose /; 10 his st~epdaugh,er, Mamie
Greer, q lot in Oakland to his %grsndchil-
dren, Raymond Kearney and Loretta Man
ion, q lot on Army Street (; to Jas. Kear-
ney, o $500 mortgage ; to Mrs. M. N. Hol-
", property at $50 Second street, San
Jose ; TO Nellie McDermott, improved
property at 1918 Guerrero street. together
with q mortgage and note for 81 1000 to
Geraldine Fitzgerald. 5000; to Mccoy
and Sidney Fitzgerald. $500. and to A.
l.. Fitzgerald Of Eureka the residue.
The will was filed for probate by Fitz-
gerald on July / Of last year, but on the
l4th Of the same month q contest was filed
by the st~epdsughiers Of the decedsnt, who
had been practically disiRherited. On the
same day the contestants filed another will
bearing date Of March 10, 1897, and under
lite provisions they were named IS the prin-
cipal legstees.
The case was tried in the Probate Court,
Department No. Q. a, San Franciso, and
was concluded last Friday. Judge Coffey
submitted the case to the jury on special
issues. The questions addressed TO The
jury and the I'VE returned were a.
follows:
Question-wss John 8. Cspron Of
sound mind 81 the time he executed lthe
paper here propounded ss bis Photographic
will?
Answer-No.
Ques,ion-wss John s. Cspron, at the
time he executed said Photographic will,
free from undue influence OF A. L. Fitz-
gersld2
Answer-No.
This, however. does not settle the case.
When the verdict OF tbs jury was read
Henry E. Highton. who represented
Judge Fitzgerald, moved the court for o
stay OF proceedings in order that he might
make a formal application to the court
10 grant q new trial.
AS soon ss the case has been disposed Of
a contest which has been filed to the ad-
mission OF the will submitted by the
stepdsughsers will be tried. This second
will provides for the distribution OF the
estate ss follows: Loretta Msnion and
Raymond Kearney, $4,000 each; to al
other relations except the ssepdsughters'
81 each. and the bulk Of the estate Wal
bequeathed to the stepdaughters.
Another suit. brought by Judge Fitz'
gerald as special Administrator, 20 de-
termine the validity Of certain gift deeds
held by the stepdaush,srs. will probably
come up for trial. IL being oontendsd thai
the instruments were intended simply a.
deeds OF trust.
The estate is variously estimated to be
worth from $50, 900 to 500, 900. and 10 lie
hardly 10 be expected that its anal settle
ment will be allowed to rest on the YER
dict Of a jury.
LATER PROCEEDINGS.
Since the shove was put in type We
gather the following from the latest city
papers: On Tuesday attorneys Highton
and Mayenbaum argued In behalf OF Judge
Fitzgersld's motion 70 set aside the YER
die. Of the jury. which Judge Cofiey de
MED. but granted twenty days to the at
torneys in which 10 file q notice Of appeal,
Attorney burst then moved the court &c
set q day for the hearing Of the application
to admi. the will to probate filed by the
stepdsughssrs OF Cspron.
The court was inclined to deny the mo
tion at first, as in event the verdict OF the
jury wac reversed by the Supreme CourI
aud the stepdaughters' will was admitted
to probate by the lower tribunal. 9 start
ling legal complication might arise. Tb'
court finally decided TO hear the applica-
ton without prejudice to either side oil
the 4th Of February.
Masquerade ball.