The San Francisco call., 1905-03-17
CLUNIE MAKES
CRAVE CHARGE
Says Inventory of Estate Of
Late Capitalist Has Been
Boldly Tempered With
CHARGE FLATLY DENIED
Executor Bridgford Asserts
Only Change Made Was
With Consent of the Court

Now comes Andrew j. Clunie, as
residuary legatee of the estate Of the
late Thomas J. Clunie, with the claim
that the records of the probate pro-
ceedings have been tampered with that
some one has been guilty of felonious
hocus pocus, for 1t Is a felony to mu-
tilate the records Of the courts Of the
State. Clunie sets forth no claim that
felony has been done. All he says is
that the records have been tampered
with; the statute books do the rest.
Clunies charge is contained in his
protest to the petition of Executors
Bridgford and White for distribution to
them under the trust provision OF
Thomas J. Clunie's will of the Clunie
building at the southwest corner Of
California and Montgomery streets.
Before proceeding to set forth his legal
objections to such distribution, Andrew
j. Clunie says that the inventory of
decedents estate is not in the same
condition it was when fled in that it
now contains the statement that all of
the property set forth In the inventory
was the separate property OF the de-
ceased. This statement, 1t claimed,
was not in the inventory when it was
filed, but now appears therein and in
handwriting other than that of either
of the executors or of any party known
to the protestant.
BRIDGFORD' DENIAL.
This charge looks serious on its face,
but Executor Bridgord says the allie
cation Is simply in line with a policy
of obstruction Andrew ]. CIunie has
been pursuing since the estate reached
the courts for settlement. THE state
ment that all of the property set forth
in the inventory was the separate
property of Thomas ]. Clunie was writ
ten in the document by our attorney,
Hudson Grant said Mr.. Bridgford.
court with his consent and In the
presence of all counsel and in the pres
ence of Andrew j. Clunie. The omis-
sion was called to Judge Coffey's at
tention and with the consent of all it
was written in and that is all there is
to it. Andrew j. Clunie knew when
and why 1t was written in, but he saw
an opportunity to raise the point and
he did it,
After setting forth his claim that
the records in the case have been tam
pered with, Andrew ]. Clunie continues
with his objection to the petition for
the distribution to the executors of the
Clunie building. He says that as
matter of fact all of the property of
the deceased was not separate, but
community property accumulated by
the deceased after his marriage to
Florence Clunie on February 27, 1873
WIDOW REPUDIATES WILL
After the death of Thomas J. Clunie,
his widow, who had been bequeathed
valuable property in Sacramento, in
cIuding the Clunie Opera-house prop
erty, the homestead and other realty
In 1fe- city r.l,< y lfo%> x,,tJI
and elected to take her share of the
community property to which she was
entitled. Under such election, 1t is set
forth, the court entered a decree CIV
ing her one-half of such property, and
such decree is now final. Under her
election the Clunie building, of which
the executors ask for distribution in
trust, became part and parcel of the
community property. it is alleged. and
before the question of it's disposition
can be determined it is necessary, Clu-
ME says, a construction be placed upon
the will by the court.
In order that such construction be
had Clunie also filed a petition asking
that the court distribute to him su.h
properties as he may be entitled to as
residuary legatee. The hearing upon
this petition will necessitate a con-
struction of the will and the future
ownership Of the Clunie building be
determined.
The executors have fled waiver Of
service and consent to the granting of
the trust established in the will of the
deceased in favor Of Jack Clunie This
helps out complications some more and
Judge Coffey has an interesting day
before him as the solver of a LEGAL
tangle that grows with each added al
legation.