The record-union., 1899-04-11


Sam was also in the sheep business,
but on less extensive scale than his
cousin. He inherited a considerable es-
tate from his father, and his son GAVIN
lived with him. Early in the I0's GAVIN
married Mary Ellen Ashurst, daughter
of Tehhma County farmer, and the
couple have lived together ever since.
One of their sons is cashier of the bank
at Orland and the other young man is
in the hardware business at the same
place. While the community is divided
in opinion as to the genuineness Of the
Wife's claim, there seems to be unaHi-
nous respect for her husband and sons,
who are sturdily with her in her fight.
To people macquainted with the par
ties in the case it's interest consists in
the great amount of money involved
and the unusual features of the alleged
transaction. Promises to pay 500, J,Oo0
are not signed every day, nor is it usual
to give a note for any amount payable
twenty years from date of signature
and drawing interest at the rate of l
per cent. a month during the interim.
Then there is the fact that the alleged
signer of this note was a niggardly cid
bachelor, while it's holder was young
married woman who sets up no plea OF
kinship or any material consideration
whatever. To say nothing of the addi-
| tional fact that the existence OF such a
| document was not known to the old
mans closest friends until he was on his
deathbed, when, it is claimed. he pro-
nounced it forgery. These are feat
ures SO uncommon as to attract wide
spread attention, and their investigation
! in open court by some of the ablest at
/ torneys in California will be closely fol-
lowed by millions of people who never
! before heard of Glenn County or its
multitudinous Murdocks.
! The PLAINTIFFS case is handled by
Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, w. 2.
Thomason of Fresno, w. M. Cannon Of
San Francisco, and Charles l. Donohue
and Frank Freeman of Willows. For
/ the defense the array of legal talent is
no less imposing. 1t embraces General
| w. H. L. Barnes, E. S. Pillsbury and
! Richard Bayne of San Francisco, C. +.
i Lusk of Chico and Ben F. Gels of Will
! lows.
] Defendants in the suit are the execu-
tors of the William Murdoch estate,
consisting of B. H. Burton cashier of
the Bank of Willows; w. P. Harrington,
cashier of the Colusa County Bank, and
Adam Compton, farmer, nephew of
the deceased wool grower and the prin-
cipal beneficiary by his WILL Burton
and Harrington are heavy stockholders
i in the Bank of Willows.
| THE PLAINTIFFS CASE.
| Mrs. Murdock's claim is clearly set
! forth in deposition made by her to the
executors, but hen. attorneys have some
cards in reserve which they will not
play unless their hand is forced
| 1t will be set forth that Samuel Muir
dock, father of plaintiffs husband
turned his surplus earnings over to his
cousin William for safe keeping, and
| that this course was strongly opposed
! by his son GAVIN. AS a consequence
there were frequent quarrels between
Samuel and his son, but between the
older man and his daughter-in-law
good feeling always existed. This stu
alton came to an end in 1876, when
father and son dissolved partnership,
the latter paying a large sum of money
for retention of the property, which
was duly added to the hoard that Sam
uel had from time to time entrusted to
| Williams custody Then it was
claimed by William that GAVIN had not
paid his father enough in the settle
ment, and demand for S20,0G0 more
was made, which GAVIN paid, to avoid
trouble This final settlement was made
On the day that the note for S100. 900
was signed.
On this memorable occasion there
were present in Gawn's house at OHM
po the three men, Mrs. Murdoch and
her two young children. When a set
tlement of Williams account with
Samuel was attempted it was found
that all the money entrusted to the
former for safe keeping was not avail
able and the balance of the amount
due was transferred from Samuel to his
daughter-in-law for the benefit of his
two grandsons of whom he was very
fond. That was how the note in ques-
ton came into being. Mrs. Murdock
filled in the blank places, and William
signed it then and there Samuel had
it made payable twenty years after
date. so that it would fall due about
the time the boys would become of age
If Samuel had not been on unfriendly
terms with GAVIN, the note would have
been made payable to him instead of
his wife. The rate of interest," per
cent a month-was not unreasonable at
that time when ~ per cent was free
ly paid on short loans.
While the note was carefully treas
ured. a great many people saw or heard
of it before it attained maturity, say
Mrs. Murdock's lawyers. 1t has been
handled by witnesses who will be pro.
duced and it has figured as collateral
security One of the present defend
ant executors, w. H. Burton, knew of
its existence during William Murdock's
lifetime. and has since said that chad
old Bill Murdock lived while longer
that note would have been lifted" It
is further alleged by Grove L. Johnson
and colleagues that F. c. Lusk, one OF
the attorneys for the defense, was Will
lam Murdock's legal advisor for some
time prior to the old mans death, and
that while so serving he knew of the
note being held by Mrs Murdoch, ard
discussed it with his client
THE PLAN OF DEFENSE.
To win the case, the defense must
prove either forgery or no considera-
ton, and, from hints inadvertently
dropped by General Barnes in court it
is inferred that he purposes to establish
both; also, that the trial will be pro-
life of interesting insinuations as to
the plaintiffs character.
1t will be claimed that Samuel Muir
docks earthly possessions never ak
ceeded in amount or value the sum of
S1S,G00, and that his cousin William
could not possibly have been indebted
to him, as alleged by plaintiff. Wit
nesses will be called to testify that on
his deathbed William denied having
signed the note held by Gawn's wife.
or any promise to pay any one at any