The Butte inter mountain., 1902-07-02
PUBLIC ANXIOUS TO KNOW WHAT
WILL FOLLOW SHOULD COURTS
REJECT DOCUMENT,
PROPONENTS MAY BE-
LIABLE FOR FORGERY
Attempt Is Made to Gain Possession
Of Property by fraudulent Will
Adverse Evidence Is Strong and Case
viii Be Closely Watched.

Several witnesses at the trial of the
Colbert will contest, now in progress in
Judge Clancy's court, have declared in
unmstakabe terms, although perhaps not
in the exact language, that the document
known as the Lippncott Woolbeater will
is forgery.
Others have said just as clearly that in
their opinion, given usually as experts in
handwriting, the person who wrote GER
tain signatures Of the name John Wool
beater' upon other instruments, which
signatures were admitted by Woolbeater
to have been made by him, also wrote the
signature Charles Colbert" upon the Lip
pincott Woolbeater will.
In view Of these statements Of opinion
made upon oath by men claiming to have
expert knowledge Of handwriting the
Butte public is interested in the question
OF what the results will be to the men
who are putting forward the Woolbcater1
Lippincott will as the genuine last will
and testament OF Charles Colbert, should
Judge Clancy and the supreme court of
the state decide that instrument to have
been forged.
The Statutes Upon Forgery.
The statutes have the following upon
forgery: Every person who with intent
to defraud another, falsely makes, alters,
FORCES or counterfeits any will,
testament, codicil s.. or hand
writing OF another or uttcrs,
publishes or passes or attempts to pass,
rs true or genuine, any Of the above
named false altered, forged or counter
feited matters as above specified or de
scribed. knowing the same 10 be false.
altered, forged or counterfeited. with intent
to prejudice, damage or defraud any per
son, or who with intent TO defraud alters.
corrupts or fasidcs any record Of any
will, codicil, conveyance or other instru-
ment, the record of which is by law evil
dence, is guilty of forgery"
Imprisonment from one to II years in
state prison is the penalty for forgery
When asked his opinion as to whether
criminal prosecution might not grow out
of the present civil contest in the courts,
a wel-known lawyer replied that prosecu-
tions for forgery are not in the least un-
common as a result OF attempts to wrong
fully gain possession Of estates by means
Of forged wills, but that he had no opinion
rs to what may result from the present
contest even if the jury in the trial court
and the judges OF the supreme court refuse
to probate the Lippincott Woolbcater will
on the ground that il was never made by
Colbert and his signature to it is for
gerry.
A Matter OF Evidence.
Another lawyer expressed the opinion
that conviction for the forging of wills
is a matter of evidence. A will may be
refused admission to probate on the ground
that it was forged, but there may not be
efficient npi1anna ,h;aL "a, t,,,
the proponents of it or anybody else for
the forging of it. Because a proponent
puts a forged will forward for probate
does not prove that he forged il or knew
that it was forged, or intended to defraud,
or did not in good faith believe that it
was genuine.
Much talk has resulted from the ad-
verse evidence given in the Colbert CON
test against the Lippincott Woolbcater will,
and the result of the suggested forgery will
be watched closely.