Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1901-04-11
Children Contested VIII.

was offered for probate in Galveston,
Tex.
Children Contested Will.
This Will was contested by the chill
dren of Mrs. Rice, who employed \.
Il. Holt and Patrick as attorneys. The
witness appeared in these proceed
ings as attorney for Mr.. Rice. the teS-
timony in the case being taken in New
York city. He also said he had act
ed as Mr.. Rice's attorney up TO the
time of his death in September last
He knew Patrick in Houston, Tex. as
far back as 1891. The first news he
received of the death of the aged mil
lionaire was i'm a telegram sent him
by Jones. the valet. He immediately
telegraphed Jones to confer with NJ
:. Melvin TO maintain the status quo
until he Uhc Witness arrived in New
York. He reached this city on the
Thursday following the death of Rice.
and met Patrick. Mr.. Melvin was
present.
when l met Patrick" said Baker.
''he asked me to step into another
room. as he wanted to speak to me
alone. | said Mr. Melvin should ac-
company us. but l went into back
room with Patrick
Talk with Patrick.
Baker detailed his conversation with
Patrick. who Informed him that Rice
had lost confidence in the witness and
had engaged him CPatrick) as his legal
adviser. The viii of 1900 was pro-
duced by Patrick. who. after some
objections. had given the witness
copy. though refusing to indorse it as
n true copy of the will. The witness
also received Il number of Rice's pa
pers from Patrick. Patrick had told
him he did not want his connection
with Rice to become generally known.
and said that Jones. Rice's valet, was
the only person who knew of the rela-
tions. The 1896 will was handed to
Baker by the assistant district attOr-
ney. and the witness declared that the
signature attached thereto was Rice's.
Then the Swenson checks were hand
ed TO the witness. who declared that
the signatures purpOrting to be Rice's,
We're fOrgeries. On cross-eXaminatiOn
Baker said he had not known that
Rice had had mania for making
wills. though during the Holt litigation
was over the will of Mrs.
Rice-he had learned that Rice made
several wills between the years 1873
and 1896.
Rice Case Lawyers Angry.
\ bitter quarrel between Assistant
District Attorney Osborne and AttOr-
ney Moore, who represents Albert 7.
Patrick, resulted from Tuesdays pro
ceedings in the case of Patrick. who
is accuse of the murder of w. NJ.
Rice. The cause of the dispute was
Osborne's success I'm wringing from
Valet Jones the statement that the
latter'S confession of the murder was
first told some time ago to Attorney
House. one of Patrick's lawyers, who
at that time also represented Jones.
Upbraids Osborne.
During the recess Attorney Moore
uDbraided Osborne for bringing out
this testimony. charging the district
attorney with unfairneSS and unprOfes-
sional conduct. Osborne answered that
he had done so because the defense
had insinuated that Jones story had
been concocted by the attorneys for
the prosecution. Accusations and re-
were exchanged in live
ly fashion until the two attorneys were
separated by their associates. John
H. Wallace. paying teller in the bank
ing house of Swenson & Co, told
of the presentation on the day Rice
died of a check for $4,000. purpOrting
to have been drawn by the million
aire. of his refusal to cash it because
he believed il was not genuine. OF
calling Jones on the telephone and
being informed by the latter that Rice
was dead. but that the check was all
right, and of the presentation on the
same day of a check for $6J 900, made
payable to Patrick.
Great Chance for Morgan
London. April 1.-THE Pail Mall
Gazette. discussinga cabled suggestion
that J. Pierpont Morgan's visit to Eu-
~.