Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-07
Offers Records as Proof That the
District Attorney Concealed
Crime of Forgery
ADDRESSES BIG MEETING
Candidate Charges FrederiCks
Made Large Profits by
flushing Up Case
continued from PAGE oneN

date May 4, 1904, to the same will
that was first filed for probate. Mr..
Fredericks has this to say over his
own signature: "Such codicil was
wholly forged and fabricated by
said Lucy King and by some other
person or persons unknown"
This is a sufficient answer to his
contention that the codicils to the
will that was first filed were not
forged, but there will be further
proof of the falsity of his position
further on in this statement.
Now, let us pass to the second
will filed for probate, about which
Mr.. Fredericks has been SO silent.
This will was q complete and utter
forgery from beginning to end, the
names of the witnesses as well as
every other portion of the will be-
ing an unqualified forgery.
WILL ENTIRELY FORGED
In relation to this last or second
will filed for probate Mr.. F'reder-
icks states over his own signature
in the papers and pleadings and
answer in the case that l have re-
ferred to that this second will, that
is, the will bearing date June Z, 1905,
was entirely written, dated, signed
and manufactured and forged
wholly And further, Mr.. Fred
ericks states over his own sigma
ture in the papers, pleadings ana
answer in the case that l have re-
ferred to as follows: Deny that
said deponent left said viii or any
will. Deny that the said
will was wholly or at all written,
dated and signed by the testator.'
n
showing Mr.. Fredericks' guilty
knowledge of this forgery of the
second will filed for probate I will
uuote a letter from his office to
John Gales, husband of one of the
heirs, of date September 8, 1905, as
follows:
Prof. Ames has completed his
examination of the handwriting OF
Michael H. King, deceased, and has
pronounced the will of June Z, 19O5,
an unqualified forgery
In addition to this have the af-
fdavit of John Gales, respected
citizen of means In Whittier, who
is the husband of one of the heirs
who was feeced, that he and other
members of the family told Freder-
icks time and again that this sec
ond will was a forgery and told
him that it was forged by Lucy
King and insisted upon his prose-
cutting, and instead of doing so he
suppressed and covered up the
felonies and looted the estate of
$4,000, not a cent of which he was
entitled to and not a cent Of which
he would have gotten but for his
suppressing the crime.
QUOTES FROM RECORDS
Now, as a further evidence of
his guilty knowledge and his at
tempt to hide his conduct, 1 will
quote from a paper filed in the
same case in which F'redericks
seeks to have all evidence of the
offense of which he had been guilty
removed from the files of the court.
Over his own signature he requests
the court by way of stipulation as
follows:
That the petition for probate of
both wills be withdrawn from the
files of the clerk of said court and
that the contests and opposition to
both petitions for probate be like
wise Withdrawn from said files and
that the answers to both contests
and oppositions be In like manner
withdrawn from said files after the
order OF said superior court has
been obtained in accordance with
this stipulation; 1t being stipulated
and agreed that Mary ]. King, the
proponent of both wills and the
widow of said deceased, shall with
draw and renounce, and does mere
withdraw and renounce any and all
rights under either and both of said
wills.
1.-THE court refused to permit the
papers to be withdrawn"
If any further evidence is need
ed as to his guilty knowledge that
the codicils to the first will were
forgeries and that the second will
was an unqualified and complete
forgery from beginning to end, 1t
may be found in contract OF date
October 10, 1906, between Freder-
icks and Gage and r'oley, two of
the heirs of Michael H. King, Mrs.
Volkmor and Mrs. Gales, from
which 1 will quote:
"There is now pending in the su-
perior court of Los Angeles county,
state of California, a proceeding
by Mary ]. King, widow of said de-
ceased, whereby said widow petit
tions to have admitted to probate
an alleged will bearing date June
(
first part believe to be forged, and
which they have contested and by
the terms of which supposed will
said first parties are excluded from
inheriting the estate of said de-
ceased, that said widow also has
filed a genuine will of said deceased
dated January 26, 1898, but which
contains various alterations, and
attached to said last will are four
or five codicils, dated, respective
ly, April 26, 1899; the fourth day
Of May, 1904, the 21st day Of Sep
tember, 1904, and the 5th day of
April. 1905, some of which said
codicils, if not all, are supposed
to be forged, and said first parties
have filed a contest against said
last will and codicils."
In this contract, which is signed
by the hand of J. D. F'redericks
himself, and to which he is a party,
is an agreement to pay Freder-
icks and Gage and Foley the enor-
nous percentage of so per cent of
the proportion of the estate COM
ing to Mrs. Gales and Mrs. Volk-
NOR.
Now. to again repeat the charge,
]. d. Fredericks, as district attor-
ney, knowing of two separate for
geries, suppressed and covered UP
the same for the purpose of en-
riching himself when 1t was his
sworn duty to prosecute all such
offenses and that as a direct result
of such suppression, looted the es-
tate of the dead, Michael H. King,
of about $12, 900 of real property and
moneV