The San Francisco call., 1899-12-30
WILL RENEW HER
FIGHT FOR THE
PACE ESTATE
Young Mother Expects
Lively Times.
Oakland Office San Francisco Call.

sos Broadway, Dec %
The posthumous child Of the late Samuel
Page OF Hanford. Kings County. born Ia
Lillian Leslie Page. the authoress, a few
days ago and who win figure prominently
IA The mothers proposed suit TO reopen
the hugauon over the valuable Page es-
tate, has been chriStened Winifred Page
Mrs. Page and the new, young heir Will
leave Oakland tomorrow for the old
homestead al Hanford
anticipate. as my lawyers have al
Iealg ADVISED me. that i VIII have Ia
undergo great nervous strain immedi-
4lely upon my arrival at Hanford." said
MrS. Page to-day. The other heirs-the
chlldren OF my deceased husband-will no
doubt try 10 have me elected from the old
homestead, but have taken new courage
since the arrival OF nay child into this cold
world and / shall fight bravely 10 secure
Tor the little one the share she is entitled
10 IN the estate. Winifred is the picture
OF her father, her big blue eyes and brown
halr, just as her father possessed, bring
me cheer.
OF course I propose TO sue the son and
daughter, Mary Carver and DR.. Sol Page.
10 set aside and auuulI the assignment :
made 10y Samuel Page 10 them prior 10
our marriage last February because
am certain and can prove that at the
time ot the assignments Mr.. Page was not
Ia MS right mind. Certainly he assigned
70 Keep woman named Adams who was
suing hlm Tor breach of contract, from
getting his property, but that he should
have allowed himself 10 fall a victim Ia
that womans smiles at his advanced age
and so soon after his wifes death. con-
Nlnces almost any one that he was insane
Ihen MS religious peculiarities are enough
10 show his insanity. Mr.. Page had the
Bible by heart, but many OF his friends
doubted II he had IL at heart He had
been lay preacher for fifty years
4 expect therell be lively times when
] arrive at HanfOrd, but / have facts and
truths enough that can be testified 10 that
lot Z HH..HY
no bought truths either, for ! haven't the
money TO SQuander.'
HANFORD. Dec. 29.-On December 26
1886, Samuel Page, a wealthy septuagc-
marian Of Kings County. was sued by
Mrs. Adams, a female barber. for $40. 900
Tor breach Of promise. Anticipating an
adverse judgment Page transferred his
property 10 his two children. DR.. Solomon
Page and Mrs Mary Carver OF Nisalia.
a jury awarded the plaintiff $500. Soon
after. Page sued his children 20 recover
his property, alleging fraud. Justin ia
cObs, Superior Judge OF Kings County
since deceased, decided for the old man.
In the meantime. Page. doting and senilc
advertised for wife In various marriage
papers, getting a reply from Mrs l.. II.
i. Bushnell OF San Francisco. aged 3s
Page was a Baptist and explained his pc
culiar Views 10 his prospective bride. and
IN that respect she agreed, or said so.
They were married on February (, 1899
and Page died a few months later, leav-
Ing a VIII giving his estate TO the widow
Altli AuhNIu fillu anu n son. Elias, Dut
cutting of Dr. Page and Mrs Carver
with so each. Judge Phillips. who sue
ceeded Jacobs. appointed by Budd. grant
ed a rehearing just prior 10 going out OF
Office. Judge Short, the new incumbent
being disqualified, the case was trans
ferred 10 Tulare County before. Judge
Wallace, who rendered a decision on the
18th inst holding that the transfer OF
property was valid and legal. and that IT
had been conveyed 10 be held I'm trust TIL
the decease OF Samuel Page. and was
then 10 be divided between the four chill
dren-Dr. Page, Mary Carver. II. G. and
Elias Page-and that the elder Page was
included In the transfer Of the property
as well as the children. and that no fraud
had been practiced. as had been contend
ed when the transfer was made.
Under the decision the four children are
the sole heirs OF their father. thus cutting
of Mrs. Lillian Page and her recently
born daughter. a Call representative
tonight interviewed leading attorney OF
Hanford. who said that the case would
be reopened here and fought to a finish.
The case has caused much attention
here. as before the recent decision the
heirs were divided as 20 the legality OF
the original transfer. one claiming fraud
IN the transaction.