Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-18


JUDGE w. @. LAwLoR.
Who Spoke at Long Beach Gathering
stated with an oath that Parker would
be there again for that matter
after referring to the charge made
by me that he and his deputies have
had 395 private civil cases within the
last four years, he refers to one lone
case in which L appeared when L was
deputy city attorney, and he refers to
my using the city time in the prosecu-
tion of this matter, when as a matter
of fact soon after L came into the case
the estate became involved in ntiga
tion and L went to the firm of Ander-
son q Anderson and associated them
with me for the purpose of attending
to the litigation and stated to them
and to my client that my reasons for
SO doing was that my duties as dep
uty district attorney would preclude
the possibility of my handling the lit
igation myself. The actual time con-
sumed by me in this matter was ex
ceedingly brief. Mr.. Fredericks con-
tinues, referring to the same case:
SAYS BILL NOT CUT
He sent in bill for it of $196474.
He asked the court for this $196474
and the court would not stand for
II anu Scliu II Nelo lOO 'Dl6 q Jill
and cut it down.
This statement is an unqualified
falsehood The court did not say it
was too big a bill and the court did
not cut it down.
Now let us pass to the King will
case Mr.. Fredericks' explanation of
his conduct of this matter has been
nothing more nor less than a reiterated
confession of guilt, in spite of all his
a
hoods. He gropes around and, becom-
ing weary tries to lean upon the at
torney on the other side, but the worst
of 1t is that none of such attorneys
occupied the post of district attorney
with a sworn duty of prosecuting the
very offenses. that Mr.. Fredericks so
skilfully suppressed and covered up.
To quote
Nov the charge of Mr.. Wool
wine as I have clipped it is this:
That John d. Fredericks had his
attention called to two forgeries,
which are felonies under the laws
of this state, suppressed both of
these forgeries and received a re-
ward of between $11, 900 and $4,000,
! to which he had no lawful title on
earth
"That is about the way I put it, ex-
| cept that l entered more into detail,
and 1 wish here to reiterate the charge
and in spite of the fact that what has
been printed did not leave the public
with a shadow Of a doubt as to the
guilt of Mr.. Frederickss / viii spend
some time in showing the manner in
which he has tried to evade the real
question by evasion and falsifieation.
At this point Mr. Fredericks tries to
lean upon e. j. Fleming, and pro-
! duces a letter from Mr.. Fleming that
really decides nothing in regard to Mr..
Fredericks' guilt; but just by way of
showing what Mr.. Fleming thinks of
the duties Of the district attorney
when a forgery is brought to his at
tention, I will read a letter of Mr..
Flemings to me of date october 15,
1910.
Thomas Lee Woolwine, Los An
geles, Calf:
Dear Mr.. Woolwine-In answer
to your verbal inquiry as to the
forged codieils to the first will of
Michael H. King, and the second
will, which was forgery, will say
that the first knowledge that I had
! of forgery having been committed
with reference to the two wills Of
| said King was from an examina-
tion of the papers in said case, from
| which it appeared that Mr.. Freder-
iclzs alleged that the codicils to the
first will were forgeries and the
second will was an entire forgery.
Had Mr.. Gales in the only inter
view he had with me, told me he
| at that time believed the crime of
| forgery had been committed, l
would have Immediately investi-
gated the charge from an official
standpoint and not otherwise, and
would have told Mr.. Gales that as
to the civil suit he would have to
employ an attorney other than Mr..
| Fredericks, as he would be disqual-
flied; but am satisfied that Mr..
Gales did not know that forgery
had been committed until some
time after his interview with me.
Yours truly, e. j. FLEMING.
Nov, before we go further, let us
brush away all the falsehoods, the
evasions and the half truths of Mr.
Fredericks, and get down to the real
facts in the case, showing his guilty
knowledge that the codicils of the first
will were forged, that the second will
was an utter and complete forgery,
and that in spite of such knowledge
| he forced q compromise from the guilty
party, had both wills set aside, sup
pressed a felony, and looted the estate
| of the dead Michael H. King of about
$4,000 in real estate and money, ard
! then tried to conceal all evidence of
his guilt by attempting to withdraw
from the files of the clerk of the court
all pleadings and papers in the case
showing such guilt. By the way, in
his purported explanation he has ut
| terly ignored this attempt to destroy
even the evidence of his guilty knowl-
edge. After quoting a few lines from
| the Gales affidavit I shall quote GER
tain language over the signature of
]. d. F'redericks himself in several
papers and documents in the case"
QUOTES FROM AFFIDAVIT
Q--Who was with you on the sec
ond visit to Fredericks? Any
wife, Mr.. Volkmor and his wife.
estate what conversation, If
any, you had upon this occasion
with John D. Fredericks Aired
! says, 1T looks very much like
forgery
Q-When did you first see this