The San Francisco call., 1905-04-15
CLUNIE TRUST
PUZZLES COURT
Judge Coffey Hears Many
Arguments as to the Law
Governing Mems Wills
SIMILAR TO FAIR CASE
Tribunal Sees Intricate
Questions and Will Let
Attorneys Speak Freely

Judge Coffey was occupied all yes
terday afternoon in hearing arguments
as to the validity of the trust under the
will of Thomas j. Clunie declared in
favor of his adopted son, Jack Clunie,
as to the property in this city known
as the Clunie building, said to be worth
over $500, ,000
E. A. Bridgeford and Burrell G. White
applied to the court for distribution
to them of the property, alleging that
their co-trustee under the will, Andrew
j. Clunie brother of the decedent, re-
fused to join with them in their appli-
cation to the court.
1t appeared that Andrews refusal
was based upon the fact that he was
advised that the trust was against the
laws of this State and that therefore 1t
was his duty to submit the matter to
the judgment of the court, as no citizen
could ask court to distribute property
upon a trust which the law prohibited,
and that our Supreme Court had held
in the famous Walkerley case that no
court could recognize as valid trust
which the laws declared to be void and
against public policy. Upon this ground
of Clunie's refusal to join with Bridge
ford and White an interesting point OF
law was presented at the beginning OF
the proceedings, namely, whether or not
IL was the duty of the petitioning trus-
tees to first show that the trust was
valid or the duty of Andrew j. Clunie
to prove that it was void under our
law.
Timothy ]. Lyons, on behalf of him.
self and his colleagues, Ex-Governor
Budd and Judge Garoutte, attorneys
for Clunie, argued that Bridgeford and
White could not be heard until they Of
fered reasons to the court in favor OF
the validity of the trust to which Hud-
son Grant and d. NJ. Delmas answered
that the burden was on Clunie to show
that the trust was bad in law.
Judge Coffey ruled that as this point
of procedure had never been decided by
the higher court and was not free from
doubt he would allow Bridgeford and
White to present their case and leave
any law questions as to the trust to be
raised after the evidence was in.
Bridgeford and White then presented
their evidence, during the course or
which Attorney Lyons interrupted with
severe comments upon the attitude of
Bridgeford and White.
When Bridgeford and White conclud-
ed their case Andred Clunie's attorneys
moved to dismiss the matter. upon the
ground that the trust claimed under
the will was void and against public
policy.
Lyons opened the argument for An
drew, and was replied to by Grant and
D. NJ. Delmas.
Upon the conclusion of Delmas' ar
gument the matter was continued to
Tuesday, the 25th. when Budd. Garoutte
and Lyons will present a reply argu-
ment to Grant and Delmas.
If the trust should be declared void
the property will go at once to the
adopted son and the brother Andrew,
which is claimed by Andrews attor-
neys to be a better disposition of the
title than that of being tied up by a
trust with the dangers involved in the
unlimited powers claimed by the trus-
tees. The dangers involved in the trust
are said to be the same as those which
moved the Supreme Court to strike
down the trust in the famous case of
the will of James G. Fair.