The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-04-26

SUIT OVER WILDER
WILL ON IN EARNEST
Amicab!e Controversy Develops
Into Bitter COnteSt-NOted
Lawyers Engaged.

What began as an amicable suit to
secure definite judicial construction of
the Wills of Mr.. and Mrs. A H. Wilder
and their daughter, Mrs. Appleby, has
now assumed the grave aspect of
contest of the validity of the wills and
an attack upon the legislative act of
1908, under which the will of Mrs.
Wilder was drawn.
This discOrd in the harmonious tone
of the original action has been intro
duced through the petition of the nom
resident nephews and nieces of Mrs.
Wilder TO be allowed to intervene In
the proceedings as heirs. That directly
calls into issue the validity of Mrs.
Wilder's will, and therefore the legality
of the legislative act upon which it
depends The attorneys for the inter-
VenOrs stand upon the ground that the
legislative amendment is uncOnStitu
tiOnal, and the will of Mrs. Fanny S.
Wilder is therefore invalid, and upon
this point their hopes are centered. If
the viii is valid the interVenOrS have
no interest in the estate.
The action. as it was begun, was be-
tween Victor Watkins and others, and
CHI. Bigelow and others, and its pur-
pose was to have the court interpret
certain portions of the Wilder and APP
tervention was filed the matter has
come before the court several times
upon technical questions of appearance
OF counsel, status of pleadingS and
form of presentation of arguments.
Yesterday for the first time. the vital
questions of the case were taken up.
Able Attorneys Retained.
Although the case may be said to
have only just begun, large portion
of the ablest attorneys of the city and
some from outside are already engaged
on behalf of one or other of the con-
fiicting interests. In addition to those
who have previously appeared, Frank
B. Kellogg took a place among those
who are uphOlding the validity of the
wills and the Wilder trusts, and w. p.
Warner of this city. and James z.
Treadwell. of San Francisco. joined
Messrs. Clapp and Mccartney and 9TH
ers, who appear for the intervenors.
Judge George L. Bum is hearing the
case.
At the opening of court yesterday
considerable time was devoted to dis
cuSsion as to what form the proceed
tngs should take and to what particu-
lar points argument should be directed,
the present point al issue being the
right of the claimants as heirs to in
tervene.
Mr.. Clapp. for the intervenors. said
of the wills should be tested at this
time and that the argument should be
addressed directly to the question of
their validity. Mr.. Durment, on behalf
of DR.. Appleby. objected, so far as the
viii Of Mrs. Appleby was concerned,
on the ground that the petition of the
intervenOrs involved no question Of the
validity of Mrs. Appleby's will.
Mr.. Kellogg Objects.
Mr.. Kellogg, speaking for the trus-
tees, said he would not stipulate that
the wills should be tested on this ar
gument as to their validity. He said
that the petitioners had contested the
validity of the wills of Mrs. Wilder
and Mrs. Appleby, and to ascertain if
these parties might have any interest
1t would be necessary to look into the
will of Mrs. Wilder, to determine their
claims as heirs; but he would not stip-
ulate to have the question of the va
Hdity of the will rest upon this exam
nation.
Almost the entire day-was devoted
to argument on the part Of James E.
TreadwelI, in behalf of the motion to
intervene. He made q most vigorous
attack upon the law of 1903 amending
the former law in regard to wills and
trusts. The old law, which was SIM
liar to the laws of nearly all the states
on the same subject, required that
beneficiary behestS must be direct,
specific and definite, or they would be
of no effect. The new law admitted Of
a general behest such as the Wilder
charity, to be administered by board
of trustees.
Mr.. Treadwer attacked the amended
law from the very beginning-its title.
He said that the title was misleading
and defective from the fact that it pro-
claimed merely an amendment Of chap
ter of section 1924 of the uses and
trusts law, which in fact had nothing
to do with trusts such as the one in
question. He said that he did not be-
ieve that the members of the legisla-
ture who passed that law had any idea
that they were undertaking to over
turn law common to every state in
the Union, and he did not believe they
knew the purport Of the law. He
thought this might reasonably be in
ferred from the fact that the amend
ment was rushed through both houses
in the same day and was passed late
at night.