Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-21
AFFIDAVIT GIVES
|. lie To DISTRICT
ATTY. FREDERICKS
Candidate for Opponents Office
Delivers ForCefuI Address to
the Voters at Glendale
REVIEW OF WILL F0RGERIES
Affidavit Read to Prove Unlawful
Collection of Fees by the
County Official

| At a meeting in Glendale last night
Thomas Lee Woolwine riddled the de-
fense attempted by his opponent, j. ID.
Fredericks, in the district attorneyship
campaign. Mr.. Woolwine showed how
! the district attorney convicted htmser
| in his attempt to deny the charges. He
! presented an affidavit from John l..
! Gales which recounted the conversation
| in which Mr.. Fredericks explained, 1T
is the mon we want" and named the
witnesses to that remark.
In the minds of those who heard him
! Mr.. Woolwine absolutely proved his
! points relative to the forged will case,
] and left his opponent without an argu-
ment in his favor. The speaker was
enthusiastically received, and the audi
| ence paid the closest attention through
out his address. He said:
II wish to call your attention espe-
! ciallv to one phase of Mr.. Fredericks'
attempt to mislead the public as to his
| guilty knowledge of the forger1es in the
| case of the King wills, that is, his at
tempt to have the public believe that he
did not know of the forgeries until after
he had entered on the contest and until
after he had entered into the contract
for the usurious fee. In other words, he
would have the public believe that he
was employed as a private attorney
and entered into contract to break the
will, and actually began the contest
before he became aware of the forge
ries.
"Of course even if he could by his
false and misleading statements main
| tain such a position, it would not help
him in his suppression of these felo-
nies, in his looting of the estate, but the
following facts will prove that he knew
! that the wills were forged long before
! the contests were entered into court
and long before he induced the heirs
| Mrs. Volkmor and Mrs Gales-to agree
to part with 90 per cent of their snare.
CHARGES WILL BE FORGERY
'Mr. Frederlcks stated in his speech
! at Simpson auditorium as follows:
| So YOU see that will (meaning the
first wilD was brought to me as
private attorney; it was not claimed
to be a forged will; it was brought
to me to employ me as an attorney
to break it.
| "Referrine further to his employment,
and his attempt to make it appear that
his contract for the eXorbitant fee was
entered into before he knew of the
forgeries, he uses this language:
And the arrangements were made
with them, entered in with them,
were not in writing, however, at
that time, were not put in writing
! until the 10th of october; but on
the 10th of october were reduced to
writing and refer back to our en-
| ployment at the beginning. Now
| Mr. Woolwine has tried to make 1T
appear that the contract was made
with us on the 10th of october. 1t
was nothing of the kind. The con-
tract so specifies.
! s'This statement of Mr.. Fredericks'
| is so palpably false as to fill one with
wonder that he should make 1t. Inc
contract itself, as we'll as the letter
j that | will read, together with John
! Gales affidavit in relation to the mat
| fer. and Fredericks' admissions and
| statements over his own signature in
the papers in the case, prove conclu-
sively that his statement is unquah-
dedly false. rs
"The truth of the matter is that
shortly after July 8, 1906, the date OF
the filing Of the first will, and before
| the filing of the second will, he was
! told that the codicils to the first will
were forgeries, and then. within TWO
or three days after August 20, the
| date of the filing of the second VIII,
he was told that the second will was
an entire forgery, and on September
s, 1906 letter containing the follow
! ing information was written from his
office to Mr.. John Gales in relation to
the second will:
AFFIDAVITs SUPPLY PROOF
Prof.. AIQeS mas cOIuplGL0u IliS "a
animation of the writing Of Michael
II. King, deceased, and has pro-
nounced the will of June Z, 1906. an
unqualified forgery.
"Then. on october 8, he filed con-
tests to both wills, alleging that the
codicils to the first will We're forged
by Lucy King and some other person
! or persons unknown, and that the sec
| ond will was entirely forged.
GENIovT with the flIll knowledge oil
the forgeries, and long before the date
of his letter of october to Mr.. Gales
| he writes to Gales upon that date. sus-
| costing that arrangements be MADE as
to fees, and this is followed by MS
| inducing the heirs to enter into the
contract of date October 10 to surren-
der one-half of their portion of the
estate, instead of proceeding to prose-
| cute the .forgers. In other words, in
| sDite of all that ! have stated as to
his guilty knowledge of the forgerles,
he proceeds to lay his plans to loot
the estate, instead of doing his duty
as district attorney and prosecuting
criminally the forgers.
! "That he knew that these forgeries
had been committed long before his
actual employment in the matter, ana
long before the contests were entered,
is unavoidable. and he cannot escape
the responsibility by such palpable
| falsehOOdS ana Sucn 4ulSTeprSSSHta-
tions. The affidavit of John Gales
that 1 will presently read fully covers
this entire matter.
PROOF IN CONTRACT DATE
Before reading the affidavit 1 will
call your attention to this language in
the speech already referred to:
Now, Mr.. Woolwine has tried to
make it appear that the contract
was made with us on the 10th OF
October. 1t was nothing of the
kind. The contract so specifies
"This statement is absolutely re-
futed by the date of the contract it.
self and by the fact that the contract
! tCoutiuued ON Page FourD