The San Francisco call., 1905-02-09
CLUNIE RECALLS
THREAT TO KILL
Bridgford Retorts That He
Would Not Harm all
Enemy With a Pistol
ARGUMENTS ARE BEGUN
Executors Charged With En-
bezzlement Because They
Paid Fees of Attorneys

The Clunie- Bridgford- White contro-
versy, arising out of the objections of
Andrew j. Clunie TO the account of his
estate, reached the argumentative
stage yesterday, and this afternoon.
after z. A. BriGgford has presented his
views to the court ard Andrew Ciunie
has answered them, the conflict will be
taken under submission by Judge Cof-
fey, without reference to the personal
bitterness which has surcharged the
proceedings
A final fling at the sensational was
had in the following dialogue, when
Clunie was on the stand yesterday and
Bridgford the examiner
Bridgford-Why have you been constantly re-
ferring to that Harcourt note in this proceeding
since told you it was raid?
of perjury in having left Whites collateral
note out of the account. And am going TO
refer to 1t again in my argument. am under
Bridgford-And you lying under oath
Judge Coffey Ito Cunie)-You not under
oath to impute crime. Leave out this guilty
of perjury from your testimony You may
say what you please in an argument
Bridgford-You'n never say it outside OF
this court.
Clunie (depreea tingly)-oh. you've threat
Bridgford-I'n never harm you that way.
Clunie-Well. you can't harm me any other
way because l am watching YOU
So much for that and no blood was
shed.
When Clunie took the stand in his
own behalf he explained many of the
matters contained in his objections to
the account. He had, he said. never
consented to the payment of $500 TO
Bridgford as an advancement on his
executors commission, and when he
discussed the matter with him Bridg-
ford used foul language" and ordered
him out of the office, "but l didn't CO.
said Clunie, because it wasn't his
office; he didn't pay a cent for II.
After Clunies testimony was taken
both sides rested and then Clunie OBJ
jected to having the report of Ac-
countant Knapp, certifying to the cor
rectness of the executors books, be-
come a part of the records in the case.
Judge Coffey said the report had no
legal value.
Then Clunie began his argument, de-
claring that the executors had misap-
propriated $4,000 of the estates funds
in paying attorneys whose services
were not needed. He asserted that
they were therefore guilty of embezzle-
ment under the section of the Criminal
Code relating to the trust of executors.
He contendeG that if the Services of
Judge Grant and Walter Robinson
not have allowed more than $4,000, and
he relied on that provision of General
Clunie's will that one Of the three ex-
ecutors, all lawyers, should choose one
of their own number as attorney for
the estate.
When Judge Grant answered the ar
gument he made the point that the
provision of the will that one Of the
three may be designated as attor-
ney" was not mandatory, but merely
to be construed that if one of the three
acted he should have extra compensa-
tion for the service The services by
himself and Robinson, he said, had
been rendered in good faith and the
money had been paid. If it was not
allowed by the court the executors
could be held personally responsible.
Judge Coffey intimated that attor-
neys often drew wills in their own In
terest and that the court could not ut
terly ignore the provision of Clunie's
will. 1t either meant something or
nothing regarding the employment of
one of the three executors as attorney
Grant, for himself, wanted to say
that he had been charged with helping
Ito loot the estate; that it was a Sc
rious charge, gravely made, and If true
ought to be followed by proceedings
for his disbarment from practice. IF
false" said he, '.it constitutes criminal
libel"
II am willing to answer the libel"
interjected Clunie.
You will be called upon to answer"
said Burrell White