Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-25
DAVIS LETTER TO
TIMES DISSECTED
Charles H. MattingIy RefuteS the
Statements Made in Fred
eriCkS' Defense

place good government above poll
tics" urges Charles H. Mattingly in ;
letter to The Herald discussing thu
legal phases of the King will matter
Mr.. Mattingly refutes statements mad
by lie Compte Davis in a letter giYel
out by District Attorney Fredericks il
his defense.
In his letter Mr.. Mattingly says:
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 24.-Editor
Herald: notice in yesterdays Times
a letter from lie Compile Davis to
District Attorney Fredericks at
tempting to justify the action Of Mr..
Fredericks In accepting half of a
large estate as a fee for private legal
services rendered on time belonging
to Los Angeles county, and as dis
trict attorney failing to prosecute
the forger of a will, and by that
means making a favorable settle
ment for himself and his client,
according to the well known
charges Of Mr.. Woolwine.
Admitting, for the sake of argu-
ment, the assertion of Mr.. Davis on
behalf of Mr.. Fredericks, that
where there are no other witnesses
and the signer of an instrument,
alleged to be forged, is dead, some
ullllCulLy ITO clllClAd tllC CALCA - -
the prosecution in a criminal case
to prove that the deceased did not
authorize the defendant charged
with the crime of forgery to sign
the instrument; under the law of
this state (section 1876 Of the code
of civic procedure) there must be
two attesting witnesses to the sig
nature of a will. Whether signed
by the testator himself or by some-
one under his direction, the sub
scription must be made in the
presence of these two attesting
witnesses, or be acknowledged by
the testator to them to have been
made by him or by his authority.
The testator must, at the time OF
subscribing or acknowledging the
same, declare to the attesting wit
nesses that the instrument is his
will; and those two attesting wit
nesses must sign the same as wit
nesses, at the end cf the will at the
testators request, and in his pres
ence.
WILL SUPPORT WOOLWINE
Whether genuine or forged, there
has never been any pretense that
the will of Michael King was not
drawn with due regard to legal
formalities. 1t necessarily follows,
therefore, as the day follows the
night, that Michael King, now de-
ceased is not the only person who
knew whether the name of Michael
King was signed by him, or under
mis- direction, or whether it was a
rank forgery. So far as l have been
able to ascertain, Mr.. Fredericks
has never made any pretense of as
certaining these facts from the wit
nesses who signed the will. His
claim that Michael King, the only
witness to that forgery, if it was a
forgery, is dead is, in my opinion,
q mere subterfuge to cover up his
tracks.
I have been practicing law in the
city of Los Angeles continuously
for the past fifteen years, and dur
ing a considerable portion of that
time have known both Tom Wool
wine and j. d. Fredericks. Mr..
Woolwine is my choice for the Of
flee of district attorney of Los An
geles county. He is not as good a
politician as Mr.. FredericlIs, for
the reason that he says what he
thinks in matters pertaining to city
and county government, regard
less of who may be affected by it.
He hews close to the line, and let's
the chips fall where they may.
And while that discloses his weak
ness as a politician it commensur-
ately discloses his strength as q
citizen. And 1t was in the strength
of that citizenship that he probed
the Harper scandal, and the irregu-
larity of the district attorneys Of
flee with reference thereto, which
started the ball to rolling, and gave
us the best government we ever
had.
1t is, in my opinion. matter of
common knowledge with every citi-
zen of Los Angeles county, who has
any comprehension of the political
slough of degradation from which
our city and county are now emerg-
ing, that ]. ID. Fredericks and the
office of district attorney, as he
has conducted it, have been the
principal wheels in the machinery
which has heretofore carried the
Southern Pacific political organiza-
tion to success, at the expense of