Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-18
oowne Reiterates Charges Against District Attorney

A-Mr. Volkmor and myself and
Captain Fredericks, John d. Fred
ericks, district attorney.
Q-What, IL anything, was said
upon that occasion? Ave all
three of us thought 1t was a forg-
cry; it looked that way.
Q-State what was said in sub
stance. Al said, 1T is a forgery,
Fred, whoever did 1t, send the sons
a-guns to the pen.' Fred says,
NO, it Is the man we want-he
got it too.
Q-Did Mrs. Volkmor and Mrs.
Gales, or either of them, ever ex-
press any opinion in the presence
of Fredericks as to whether or not
either or both of the said wills were
forged? Ayes.
Q-What did they say? A-They
said they were forged.
Odd they say by whom they
were forged? A-By Lucy.
Q-Do you mean that they stated
they were forged by Lucy King? D.
Ayes.
Odd Mrs. Gales and Mrs. Volk-
NOR each so state to Fredericks?
Ayes, sir.
O-How often did they so state
from the time the wills we're filed?
A-Numerous times.
Q-Did they so state to Fredericks
in your presence numerous times?
Ayes, sir.
Q-What opinion, if any, did
Fredericks express on these occa-
sions as to whether or not the wills
were forged? Ale agreed.
Q-Do you mean that he stated
that they were forgeries? A-That
they were forgeries, yes.
WOULD NOT PROSECUTE
Odd you, or did you not, re-
quest Fredericks to prosecute the
person guilty of the forgery? A
Yes.
O-Did you make this request
more than once? Ayes.
Odd Mrs. Volkmor or Mrs.
Gales ever suggest that he prose-
cute the forgers of the will? A
Yes.
Q-In your presence? Ayes, he
said, We'll, we can send her to the
pen, but what good will it do%
Q-To whom did Fredericks refer
when he said he could send her to
the penitentiary? A-To Lucy
King.
"Mr. Fredericks In his speech has
this to say:
There was no more advantage in
having such a wiz as that attempt
ed to be broken by the district at
torney than there was by anybody
else of equal ability and industry.
"The falsity of this position is ALMOST
too apparent for comment. When
Lucy King and Mrs. King agreed TO a
and agreed that the Wills
might be withdrawn, it meant dir
ference in property to Mrs. King or
cfx ytxy fhnIIG1T1d dollars.
The condition of mind, the fear that
must have actuated both Mrs. King
and Lucy King in submitting to this
is all too apparent. They
must have known that it was the sworn
dutv of Mr.. Fredericks to prosecute
the forgers, and they must have known
that with the enormous fee or Sl2,OOe
hanging in the balance, that there
could be but one course open to them,
to either submit to the settlement or
suffer the prosecution.
QUOTES FREDERICKs
"In the opposition to the probate OF
the will and codicils, that is to say or
the will first filed for probate, appears
this language over the signature OF
John D, Fredericks himself, and / am
going to read this in connection with
his statement that he did not know
who forged the codicils:
Said alleged alleged codicil, dated
the 4th day of May, 1904,
was wholly forged and fabricated
by said Lucy King, and by some
other person or persons unknown.
'sAnd referring to another codicil to
the same will:
September, l, 1904, -. was
wholly forged and fabricated by
said Lucy King, and by some other
person or persons unknown.
"And further on, referring TO the
codicil to the same will of date the
5th day Of April, 1905, Mr.. Frederlcks
has this to say:
said codicil was wholly forged
and fabricated by said Lucy King,
and by some other person or per-
sons unknown. q
"Now, all the allegations I have gust
quoted appear over the signature of
John D, Fredericks in the said paper
referred to on file in the said case.
ITO go further and show Mr.. Fred
ericks' guilty knowledge and his pre-
meditated intent to deliberately sup
press the felony and loot the estate OF
the dead Michael H. King, l will men
John D. Fredericks and Mrs. Volkmor
and Mrs. Gales, the two defrauded
heirs, in which MT Fredericks admits
over his own signature that the codi-
ellis to the first will are forgeries, and
that the second will is a forgery. This
is the contract by which he looted the
estate of so per cent of the shares of
Mrs. Gales and Mrs. Volkmor, to which
he was not entitled, and which
usurious fee he never would have got
except for the suppression of the fell
&a II
Fredericks has this to say:
Now, Mr.. Woolwine has tried to
make 1t appear that the contract
was made with us on the 10th day
of october. 1t was nothing Of the
kind. The contract so @ecifles.
SAYS ASSERTION FALSE
"This assertion contains a false
statement The contract actually bears
date October 10, 1906, is signed in the
handwriting of Fredericks himself,
and there is nothing in it that indi-
Gates that the contract was not ac-
tually entered into on the day it bears
date, that is to say, the 10th Of Octo-
ber, 1906.
"The contest to the second will, over
the signature of John d. Fredericks,
charges that the second will was an
utter and complete forgery. No fur
ther evidence of Mr.. FredericlSs' guilt
is necessary, but simply as matter
of interest and not by way of any fur
ther proof, we will quote from the
request to the court by way of stipu-
lation filed in the case:
That the contests and oppositions
to both petitions for probate be
withdrawn from said files, and that
answers to both contests and oppo-
sitions be in like manner with
drawn from said files.
"This request was never granted by