Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-23
LINKS IN A CHAIN

IF there are any persons who have
notssifted the evidence in the King
= forged will case and trusting to
the Endorsement of the Anti-Saloon
league still believe there is mo founda-
tion in fact" for the charge against
District Attorney Frederieks let them
consider this summary of events, all
matters of record:
On July ?, 1906, the King will was
taken to the court house for probate.
Attached was a codicil so palpably a
forgery that 1t attracted instant atten-
tion. The district attorney was in
formed by John Gales, an heir, that it
was a forgery.
August % a second will was filed and
a day or so thereafter Gales and Mr..
and Mrs. Volkmor, together with the
district attorney, examined 1t and all
Qncluding Fredericis) pronounced it
entirely forged. In his indignation
Gales said:
'Tf it is a forgery, Fred, who ever
did it, send the sons-a guns to the
pen;" and Fredericks answered, mo,
1t is the money we want" his exact
language being: ut is the mon we
want" So Mr., Gales takes oath.
A week later (September 81 Fred
ericks sent a letter to Gales as fol-
lows:
Prof. Ames has completed his ex-
animation of the writing of Michael
II. King, deceased, and has pro-
nounced the will of June 7, 1906, an
unqualified forgery.
Meantime Gales had informed Fred
writing expert. He found the thing to
be a bold forgery-"unqualified," Fred
erlcks said September 81.
Meantime Gales had informed Fred
ericks that Lucy King was one of the
forgers and Fredericks acquiesced. A
faithful district attorney. primarily
criminal officer, would have got busy
and sought the forger or forgers.
A month, less a few days. elapsed.
Nothing done about the crime. IN
stead, on october the district attor-
ney filed civil contests. There prom
fsed to be good mon in them, none
in criminal case. In the legal papers
Fredericks pronounced the win and
codicil forged.
Gales says Fredericks took the initia-
tive about this of his own volition.
Gales swears under oath:
His employment as an attorney
to contest the matter in the civil
courts was not thought of, as we
had no knowledge of what course
to take, but Just left the matter
to him.
This is entirely probable because it
was Gales first experience with for
gerry and he was totally ignorant of law
in the matter except that he knew
crime had been committed that called
for punishment, and he knew and i'm
plicitly trusted Fredericks to perform
his duty.
October 10 Fredericks virtually thrust
himself on Gales as a private attorney
by writing Gales to come around and
make terms about a contest. Fredericks
has said in defense that he was re-
tanned long before this date. His let
ter, fac simile of which has been
published, completely refutes this.
Ignoring his duty as a criminal pros
ecutor, Fredericks went ahead and
broke the will, taking for himself and
associate attorneys the exorbitant fee
of so per cent, or about $4,000, for the
work.
Then, having sucked the eggs, he
tried to hide the shells. He endeavored
to get court sanction to the withdrawal
from the files of his papers character
izing the second will and the codicil
as forgeries. The courts mo- to this
helped to expose the miserable busi-
ness.
IT couldn't" says the faithless dis
trict attorney in his reply to Woolwine,
"use my knowledge of the forgeries as
a club over the other parties in the
civil case"
Which can mean nothing else than
that his financial interest as a private
would not let him perform his
sworn duty as a prosecuting officer.
The will case is only one of many
charges against Frederlcks, although
it is the most important as revealing
the character of the man in the dis
trict attorneys office. AS he has done
in the King case, so he has conducted
his office in other respects.
NO SECRETS