The San Francisco call., 1899-05-12

his decisions; we simply stand on our
rights. Judge Slack also denied us the
rlght TO see the other wills in the hands
of the executors; why, we do not know
We would like to see these Wills and turn
our own microscopes on them. We do not
dsh tne judgment of any AmeS or other
numpugs, nor advisory jUries. We have
the facts and the law upon which to stand
in this matter"
Mr.; Foote then dwelt at length upon
the law under which he based his argu-
intervene in the contest Instituted by
Charles l.. Fair. He said that although
ne recognized the law that it was neces-
ssary tnat contest to a will should be
illed Wlthln one year after the document
nad peen admitted to probate, the fact
that Mrs. Craven did not file a contest
Mltnln that time was not to bar her from
intervening in the present contest, as it
was hled within the year and has since
been Kept alive. In conclusion Mr. Foote
SPOKE bitterly of the heirs, devisees and
1egateeS OF the deceased millionaires es-
tate, Whom he said willingly in days gone
py accepted the genuineness of the cele-
brated pencil will, but as soon as the de-
cisIoh i was rendered invalidating the trust
clause OF the trust will they came in one
py one and supported it, only at the pres
ent tIme reserving their energies to again
assam ITS provisions in event the Supreme
CouTt holdS the trust clause to be valid.
We simply ask for an opportunity to
night for justice on the proofs we will
produce, said Mr.. Foote and then gave
" <hlloliley MltCnell, VINO represent
ed the executors Mitchell Immediately
maze an attack on the action of Mrs.
craven In now attempting to intervene
IN pend1ng contest when she had an op-
portunity to file a contest herself within
the time allowed by law
You know why she didn't file a con-
test, interrupted Foote. ut was because
she was in the hands of you lawyers and
Mitchell took exception to the remark,
ana II looked like impending trouble,
when Foote said that he did not directly
charge Mitchell with the betrayal, but
said that other lawyers well known were
responsible for the present condition of
affairs. Mitchell then continued, dwelling
on the sections of the code relative to the
right of intervention. and was followed
by Garret McEnerney. This attorney
said that In his opinion Mrs. Craven was
forcing a matter in her attempt to inter
Nene that would result in her ultimate un-
doing. IF this court finds that Mrs.
Craven has the right to intervene in this
case" said Mr.. McEnerney. then the
contest instituted by Charles L. Fair must
itself fall The law provides that when
contest is brought all the known heirs,
legatees and devisees must be served with
legal process notifying them of the fact
OF the filing of the contest. Mrs. Craven
was not served with process when the
contest was instituted, and Charles L.
Fair must have known that Mrs. Craven
claimed to be the widow of his dead
father. Hence he violated the law if she
is such widow and his contest must fall. -
Mr.. McEnerney then went further into
the law of Intervention and was briefly
answered by Judge benson for Mrs.
Craven. Judge benson did not take the
opinion of Mr.. MCEnerney on the process
serving point seriously, holding that even
had Charles L. Fair known that Mrs.
Craven alleged herself to be the widow
of the deceased he was not forced to
serve her under the law, as he did not
recognize or know her to be in fact such
widow, so this fact he held could not
affect the standing of the contest.
But little more argument was made. and
Judge Trout put the case over till this
morning at 1920 o'clock. It is said that
Mr.. Wheeler, who represents various OF
the heirs and who filed an opposition yes
terday to the application of Mrs. Craven
to intervene in the pending contest, will
make further argument on the lines fol-
erney Mr. Heggerty will follow and
Mrs Craven's lawyers will close. The
case will then be submitted for decision.