Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-06-09

How long has It been here?" To
which qeustion witness answered.
Not to exceed a minute or two min
utes, Madam; just since you dropped
1t in there" Hall swears that he
knows that the alleged will had not
been there previously and he is a
reliable and disinterested witness.
The theory of proponent that Hall
was hiding or suppressing the docu-
ment is absurd. If he knew the box
contained will he had only to re-
fuse to permit her to exemaine It or
to have first removed 1t from the box
and then allowed an examination.
The conclusion is irresistible that
she placed the alleged will in the box
while his attention was diverted to
the map. Her connection with the
will sent to Carter is not so clearly
shown, though the letters in the sig
natures of ]. w. Young, in all three
of the alleged Wills, are spaced so
nearly alike that they might be su-
perimposed one upon the other and
practically coincide. 1t is a practi-
cal impossibility for a man to write
his name three times exactly alike
and this similarity is strong evidence
that all three signatures were traced
from a single genuine signature.
Here We have evidence connecting
proponent with the fabrication of two
false wills and when she produces a
third, its geunineness is at least
open to suspicion. The interest of
proponent to forge a will and her
disposition to do so are established
not only by the facts above stated
but by other evidence as we'll. Thus
on November 29, 1905, she wrote as
postscript to letter to Phelps &
McCourt, who at one time had been
employed by her to ascertain wheth-
er she had been legally adopted by
deceased, and who had told her she
was chasing rainbow" the follow
ing: Phelps, l thinks that rainbow
chased was quite brilliant. l will
have will for probate that will sur
prise you" This testimony was eX-
cluded on the trial as privileged
communication But we think it was
admissible, as the relation of attor-
ney and client had terminated at the
| SiAAS NhO ACIIOl was WIlll6u, anu IL
also contained an indirect threat to
commit forgery and such a commun-
ication is never privileged. The pro-
ponent, having voluntarily gone upon
the stand as witness upon the gen.
eral subject, waived the right in any
event to object to the examination
Of Judge Phelps: L. o. L. Sec. 731.
She also told Mrs. Eastland that if
she could not get the property one
way she would another, and the tes-
timony is abundant to indicate dis
position on her part to secure the
property of deceased by any means,
fair or foul.
We do not believe the testimony of
S. V, Knox or Della Stacey. Many
persons of high responsibility, ac-
quaintances and neighbors of Knox,
who have ample opportunity to be-
come aware of his reputation, say
that it is bad. 1t seldom. happens in
court of justice that man repu-
J tation is so thoroughly impeached by
the testimony of disinterested per-
, sons whose opportunities of know
ledge are the very best. 1t is true
that some persons of responsibility
} testify to his good reputation, but
those who have known him best and
| longest speak otherwise and they are
= greatly in the majority.
! The witness Della Stacey, daughter
!. of Louis Ragle, one of the reputed
witnesses of the will in question, is
: also shown to be a person of bad
reputation and vicious habits. 1t is