East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1911-04-29

Still another sensational cfLazs1e1
has been written into the famous EEG-
bel Warner will case. Last night Isz-
tween Has and 1915, some psrsxzH.
made entrance through a windG7s In
the basement of the East Oregoc.taD
building and stole two copies OF EzsR
brief which Attorneys Fee, Slater szna
Steiwer had prepared in the apqscAh
of the case to the supreme court E3ss
bold theft was discovered shortly ss2-
ter it was committed by Fred LazzEg-
kin, manager of the East OregouIass.
who noticed the open window wffen
he chanced to go into the baserneEsc
Just who is responsible for the E1sEs-
berry is of course unknown but aEn-
picion points strongly toward cerrazE
persons and an investigation is bsn1E
made. The briefs are absolutely wa3-
ueless to any but a very few indfs11-
uals and the culpa bility can thEzB-
fore be narrowed very closely. E7K
motive for the deed is harder to- aAe-
termine. The law requires that q Ges-
tain number of copies must be kaSad
and, as matter of course, IL less txuEH
this number is filed, the court Hzrsse
be. then, that an attempt was nzR8e
tc forestall the filing of the briefs FsS
persons interested. If such was EzEH
motive, the attempt was thwarteG -
about twice the number necessary assr
filing purposes were printed and Efse
absence of two will not be notSrszG
Again certin persons may have Kaa6
a desire to see the brief before EfsE
opening of the supreme court HnaH-
day and have taken this means to Rs-
cure it. The attorneys who drew zlp
the brief have their own theory OF 1ffeP
matter but do not desire to M&k&
charges without proof
Theft Soon. Discovered.
As stated before the theft occure6
near midnight Mr.. Lampkin WAS 1n
the business office at the time THxl7L-
ing out his monthly bills. Shortly 3xs-
fore IL he heard slight noise in xfss
basement but thinking it was msaee
by rat, took no notice of 1t. Afszzzs
1915 he went into the basement NJ
secure additional billheads wheB mn
felt a cold draft. Turning on siRe
lights he discovered one Of the hs,ze-
ment windows on the east side oTseR-
Immediately his thoughts reverted zn
the brief as he had been warned xJ
Judge Fee that an attempt might IsE
made to steal them. Hurrying EzfnC
the press room, he found that kWD
were missing, there being but thnTE-
four of the original thirty-six left
Locking the remainder in the sz1e,
he notified 1.-The officers who kspt
watch over the building during ttsr
rest of the night.
History of Case.
The Mabel Warner case is one wkiS7z
has occupied the attention OF 1fse
courts for a numberof years and Ezzzz
been filled with sensational devekfSs-
ments. 1t started shortly after Ease
death of James Young of WesssR
when Mabel Warner, his neics sksd
step-daughter, began a contest OF Efrs
will of the deceased. In the Mszss
suspiciaus manner, she discovese1
three other wills at different tErxnrs
which made her the principal b-exs=s-
ficiary. The signatures to these wzsk.s
were Immediately pronounced as Es,s-
geries by the county court and Zxss
woman was tried twice on a forgels
charge, both juries disagreeing Etut
one standing ten to two for conKfc-
ton.
Since then the matter has besE
threshed in the civil courts and Sfse
last act of Circuit Judge H. J. Beuu.
before he stepped down out OF tass
office here to go on the suprsyrM
bench, was to hand down a decfSSIon
in favor of Mabel Warner. Notice ssz
appeal was Immediately served anSE n
was the brief in this appeal WNNrh
was stolen.
The case will come up before 1frx
supreme court at its session in Ssfs<
city next week. Attorney d. w. KsrfS-
ey is representing Mabel Warner xcxrd
Attorneys Fee, Slater and Steiwer tEss
defense.