The San Francisco call., 1904-03-16
ESTATE AGAIN
IN THE COURTS
Public Administrator Hynes
Will Battle for Control
of Krzyanowski Property
ASKS SPECIAL LETTERS
Claims That Owing to the
Suspension of the Executor
Estate Is Unrepresented

Once again the Krzyanowski estate
is to be dragged into the courts, this
time by Public Administrator NJ. j.
Hynes, through his attorneys, Cullinan
& Hickey, who will appear before
Judge Kerrigan this morning and petit
ton for special letters of administra-
ton on the grounds that the executor
has been suspended and no one repre-
sents the estate. They will also ask
the court to order an accounting, as
the special administrator, A. o. Cotton,
turned over to Charles Rickman, the
executor, $25,173 95, of which only $1O,-
900 remains.
The status of the estate at the pres
ent time is a most peculiar one. On
November IL, 1903, Judge Trout, upon
the petition of Attorney Darwin de
Cola, representing Aloyzy Sylvester
Borkowski, who claims to be nephew
of the decedent, revoked the letters tes-
tamentary issued to Charles Hickman,
the legatee under the will, upon the
grounds that it had been shown that
there had been mismanagement and
fraud and failure to render an account
ing. Since that time the estate has
been without an executor, and the
Public Administrator. upon that show
ing, wants the court to give him
authority to handle 1t.
Maria Krzyankowski died intestate
at ST. Josephs Hospital on February l,
1903. In her will she named Charles
Hickman, an old friend as residuary
legatee, after several small bequests to
religious organizations. In the docu
ment, which was witnessed by Attor-
ney G.. H. Perry and II. w. Gantner,
she declared that she was without kin.
Shortly after the filing of the viii for
probate Marie Nightingale, also known
as Maria Krzyankowski, through her
attorney, Charles Nagle, filed a contest
to the will, alleging that she was the
daughter of the deceased and therefore
entitled to the $780, 900 estate. Before
the case came to trial a compromise
was effected by the payment of $4,000.
There was much bitterness between
Attorney Perry, representing Hickman,
and Attorney Charles Nagle, and the
1 latter, in a petition filed July 6, 1903.
says that Hickman hypothecated and
pawned portion of the property, and
embezzled. concealed, smuggled and
| disposed of money and jewelry. He
also accused him of being unreliable
and said that most of the property had
been turned over to Perry, whom he
designated as an irresponsible person.
| During some of the court proceedings
angry words passed between the two
contesting attorneys. Perry maintained
upon several occasions that NagIe was
endeavoring to foist a false heir on the
courts.
Notwithstanding this, in a motion for
a bill of particulars filed January 3,
1904, in the contest of the will institut-
ed by Aloyzy Sylvester Borkowslxi,
Nagle and Perry are named as counsel
for Hickman. Gantner, one of the wit
nesses of the will, who was an under
taker on Mission street, presented a
claim for 1885 rs for funeral expenses,
in which he made charge of $1,000 for
casket and trimmings. The claim
| was paid by Hickman as executor, and
this is one of the charges of misman-
agement of which Judge Trout took
| judicial cognizance.