Arizona republican., 1911-04-28
THE INTERESTING CASE
OF THE FISHER ESTATE
THE TRIAL BEGUN IN DISTRICT
COURT.
A Contrast Between the Kansas ard
Arizona Heirs.

! Fisher, whose trial was begun in
! district court y-ste~lay, is Of more
! than ordinary interes. In tie fret
! place there is involved the estate f
| the late Fred g Fisher. valued at
about 5000. Then there is the story
| II family dis agreement extending
over the period II more than "A gen
| Grafton. There is . further story Of
/ the evolution of tn cattle business
Fed @. Fisher died about eight
,ens ago and undo: his VIII. =. II.
! y. Luhrs was made trustee of his es-
! tate. There were four heirs. Arthur
| Fisher who had been with his father
| for twenty years and three children
/ in Kansas. The Kansas heirs brought
action for the distribution of the es-
tate, share and share alike. Arthur
I Fisher claimed half the estats 10y
virtue Of partnership with his
father and beside he demanded an ac-
counting for wages due him on ac-
count Of labor performed ana money
| turned into the estate.
Among the undisputed facts are:
| Fred q. Fisher for some years resi-
dent of Kansas quarreled with his wife
and left home in 1873. He came to
/ Arizona and four years later he went
back to Kansas not for the purpose
of a reconciliation with his wife but
after one of his sons and he returned
with Arthur Fisher
Charles w. Fisher arrived in the
! city recently accompanied by his at
! torneys, Messrs Humphrey and Platt
of Kansas. who are assisted by l. H.
Z Chalmers. The defendant is repre-
scented by Captain ]. W. CrenshaW.
Judge Kibbey was in court represent
ing the trustee.
The plaintiffs was all record evil
dence and went in by stipulation 1t
| consisted of a showing of the relations
between Fred G. Fisher and their
mother, a relation that had not been
| broken by divorce 1t was therefore
contended by them that the property
which had accumulated was communi-
" property and was therefore not
subject to administration by a trustee.
1t is of course contended that there
was no such partnership relation as
the defendant alleges and by the
way this partnership is not referred
to i'm the will. The defendant can
not under the law detail the cir
cumstances of the formation Of the
partnership SO that ~ has To depend
upon his story supported by the cor
roborating testimony of men with
whom he and his father dealt and
who had more or less casually OBJ
served their relations
The story Of the partnership be
gan in 1858, when according To the
testimony of the defendant, he and
his father brought some cattle down
from the mountains to Camp Verde.
Thirty EIGHT of the cattle belonged
To Fred c. Fisher and eight to the
defendant. 1t was then, the witness
said that the partnership was formed
and a brand was agreed upon. The
cattle was kept in the north for some
months and then were brought to
the valley
Fred G. Fisher by the way is the
first man that brought whitefaced
cattle into this country. The defend
ant testified that he spent his time
taking care of the cattle at such times
as they needed his care and once for
a period Of six months when they did
not he worked for full wages and
having earned $500 he turned it over
to his father as the property of the
partnership.
After a while the capital had in
creased in number until when a
ranch was established in 1891 in the
Mogollons and about the Four Peaks
country, he took up there something
like 1000 head of the Fisher cattle
cfx .
Broadway, which the defendant had
taken on shares. His share of the
increase he said was turned over to
his father The cattle in the MOgol-
Ions We're closed in 1894 and the de-
PENDANT said that though the cattle
business was maintained until 1908,
il had been practically abandoned in
1901.
In the meantime. Fred G.. Fisher had
come into possession of real estate. !
What is known as the Fisher home |
stead south Of the city was obtained
by the purchase of REIMBURSEMENT
for $3.50. Anoher farm was secured |
under a timber culture entry. The !
witness said that all his time not
devoted to the care of the cattle was
spent in the preparation Of this raw
land for cultivation.
While the defendant was testifying |
about the cattle Judge Kent suddenly |
stopped him to speak of a picture |
of some cattle. a photograph which !
had been given him several years ago. !
He had forgotten the name of the |
donor but now t all came back to |
him. He was Fred G.. Fisher and |
the picture was of the Fisher cattle. |
The witness said that there was |
wide sale for the cattle of the |
Fisher herd. o. II. Christy. who be- |
came famous as the grower of Here !
fords had bought many of them. had |
gone to Mexico. All these sales he |
said had been made by his father !
who took care of the financial side |
Of the concern.
When court adjourned, the witness |
had not concluded. He will be fol- /
lowed by many other witnesses who !
have some knowledge of the Fisher |
cattle business from more than twenty |
years ago until the death of Fred G. |
Fisher
Kicked by a Mad Horse.
Samuel Birch, of Beetown, Wis, had !
a most narrow escape from losing his