The record-union., 1899-10-13

The trial of the case of Amanda P.
Austin against George H. Wilcoxson,
as executor of the estate of the late
jefferson Wilcoxson, was commenced in
Department Two of the Superior Court
yesterday morning, Judge j. F. Ellison
Of Tehama County presiding,
The plaintiff, Amanda 2. Austin,
claims $150,000 from the estate for
personal services alleged to have been
rendered to her great-uncle, Jefferson
Wilcoxson, from 1879 until the date OF
his death, April s, 1898 She is rep
resented by J. NJ. Fulweiler of Auburn,
Placer County, and Grove L. Johnson
of this city. The latter was engaged
in the trial of the Mckenzie case AT
Suisun and was not present yesterday
George H. Wilcoxson, executor of the
estate, is represented by Attorneys
Hiram w. Johnson and White & Sey-
mour, all of this city.
Mr.. Fulweiler, in his opening state
ment to the court, said that it was ex-
pected to prove that the plaintiff, who
was one of a large family of children,
had been importuned by Jefferson Will
-coXson to come out to California and
care for him as child for its parent
that letters passed between them; that
she came to California and ninistered
to his wants as she had covenanted and
agreed to do. He understood that no
definite sum was stated which she was
70 receive, but that the understanding
was that she should receive a compe-
tence which would put her in affiuent
circumstances.
The plaintiff expected to prove that
the late Jefferson Wilcoxson had told
some parties that plaintiff had been
kind to him and that as she was the
only one Of his relatives who had taken
an interest in him, he would provide for
her after his death; that to others he
said he had set aside $150000; to 9th
ers that he proposed giving her more
than 500, 000-more than 100000.
The attorney said that while the
action had been brought against the
estate, he would ask the court to take
into consideration the fact that the SER
vices We're such that only Jefferson
Wilcoxson could fix the value thereof,
they being of a peculiar nature
After the opening statement was con-
to the stand. She lived, she said, in
Carrollton, Carroll County, Mo. Jeffer-
son Wilcoxson was witness -uncIe-her
fathers brother Amanda P. Austin,
witness said, is her daughter. Tn
1879 she had received a letter from
Jefferson Wilcoxson with regard to her
daughter, Amanda, coming to CaIifor-
MIA. Witness sent the letter to her
daughter, Amanda, who was attending
school in Columbia, and witness did
not know where the letter now is. She
thought her daughter had brought the
letter with her to California
In order to settle the whereabouts
Of the letter at the present time, Judge
Fulweiler requested the plaintiff, Miss
Austin, TO take the stand.
Mr.. Johnson objected to the tenn
porary withdrawal Of the witness. for
the purpose of allowing the plaintiff to
testify concerning the existence or nom
existence Of the letter, or alleged con-
tract, on the ground that she being an
interested party, could testify only
concerning matters collateral to the
case on trial. He held that the evil
dence 1t was proposed to get before the
court was not collateral, and that un-
der the statute, which he cited, 1t could
not be allowed in. He held it to be the
intention of the PLAINTIFFS attorney TO
lay the foundation for his case by the
testimony Of the plaintiff, who accord :
ing TO decisions of the Supreme Court
was not permitted TO testify directly.
They intended to prove by her that she
had had such a letter, and then put
on other witnesses to prove its con-
tents.
Mr.. Fulweiler contended that It was
intended that the plaintiff, at that time.
should testify only to collateral mat
ters-to prove that such a, letter had
been written, He referred to the OBJ
lection Of Attorney Johnson as being
only a string Of sophistries.
Mr.. johnson said it was the intention
TO introduce through the plaintiff. the
letter, which was the contract itself.
and that the gist Of the case depended
upon that proof.
Mr. Fulweiler urged that the proof
or the loss of the letter could not he
the gist Of the case. He held such evi
oenee TO be entirely collateral. and not
one OF the facts on which the action
rested
Inc court overruled the objection. re-
serving the right to reverse his ruling
later II he deemed it necessary.
MISS Austin thereupon answered the
question and said she did not know
where the letter in question was hut
that she believed it had been burned nm
When they left the ranch Mr. Wi
coAson had told her there were a num-
Der or letters in an old hamper wbica
he wanted destroyed, and She bad
burned them in his presence. She had
since searched about the ranch for tho
letter but had been unable to find # 4
motion to strike out the last sentence
was denied. Witness said she knew
the letter was burned.
Cross-examined, witness said the let
ter was burned, she thought, along in