Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-08
SAYS FREDERICKS
FAILED IN REPLY.
c. A. Young Tells of Impressions
Gained at WooIWine Meet
ing in Auditorium
CLAIMS CHARGE UNANSWERED
Declares District Attorney, in the
Writer'S Opinion, Confirms
viii Case Accusations
CLAIMS CHARGE UNANSWERED

That District Attorney Fredericks
reply to the serious charges hurled a
him by Thomas Lee Woolwlne failed
to explain Fredericks' actions in thu
forged will case cited and, in fact, pu
him in even a worse light, Is the opin
ion of c. A. Young. MIR. Young Is 6
recent arrival in Los Angeles. He die
not know Mr.. Woolwine until he hearC
him speak, nor was he acquainted will
Mr.. Fredericks, hence his view Is tina
of an unbiased person.
II had hoped that Mr.. Fredericks
having been honored as he has by thi;
county, might be able to in some man
ner refute successfully these charges,
writes Mr.. Young in expressing hi
disappointment. The letter follows:
LETTER OF @. A. YOUNG
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 7.-Editor
Los Angeles Herald: Permit me to
take advantage Of your generosity
in placing a column Of your valu-
able space at the disposal of the
public for an expression of its
views.
1 am a recent conner to your.
beautiful city and attended the
Woolwine meeting at Simpson au-
ditorium last Friday night. I went
to the meeting absolutely unpreju-
diced, having never seen either Mr..
Woolwine or Mr.. Fredericks and l
knew nothing whatever of the at
tainments or past record of either
gentleman. Mr.. Woolwine made
some very serious charges; to my
mind, he established them by the
evidence he presented. Briefly he
charged that q felony had been
committed, a will had been forged,
A. g.. 14 Aa1
called to the attention of the then
district attorney, Mr.. Fredericks;
upon a full examination of the mat
ter 1t was Mr.. Fredericks convic-
ton that someone had been guilty
of a crime; that acting as district
attorney, paid by the taxpayers of
this county to prosecute crime,
wherever 1t existed, he not only
discouraged the informant from
fling an information, but proceed
ed in the capacity of a private law
yer to compound the felony by CIV
ing the party committing the Of
fense immunity from punishment
and taking half the money SO re-
ceived for himself as a fee.
DISAPPOINTMENT IN REPLY
I had hoped that MI Fredericks,
having been honored as he has by
the good people of this county,
might be able to IN some manner
refute successfully these charges. I
awaited his reply. When 1t ap-
peared in The Herald read 1t with
care. 1t was disappointing and
unsatisfactory in the extreme. Not
only does he fail to deny the
charges, but makes them even more
serious. He states that he was sat-
isfied that the will was not a for
gerry and In support Of this state
ment he offers two letters from
handwriting experts who state that
the document is genuine.
If this is true, that the will was
genuine, that no forgery had been
committed, that therefore Freder-
icks' clients were not entitled to
anything by the original terms of
the will, he places himself even In
worse light, because he literally
forced the estate to pay over to
his clients money that If his present
contention is correct, they were not
entitled to; and If they were not
entitled to 1t, how Is he entitled to
$1,000 for getting his clients some
thing to which they had no right?
Nothing could more effectually
confirm Mr.. Woolwine's charges
than Mr.. Fredericks' denial has
done. Yours truly,
C. A. YOUNG.