Arizona republican., 1912-07-02
Litigation from Tucson Over the Estate of a Pioneer Involving it is Said About Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars.
MASONIC LODGE
 CHIEF DEPENDANT
It Had Been Fought Through Pima County Probate Court. Plaintiff, Widow and Heirs of D. J. Boleyn Are Aliens.

The Boleyn litigation, which has been in the probate court in Pima. county for more than a year and which failed of entry into the super for court after the abolition of the probate court on the admission of the territory to statehood. has now reached the United States court
 The following action was filed there yesterday: Catherine Bolen, D, J. Bolen. William H. Bolen, Freder- ick C. Bolen and Mary J. Wilson against William NJ. Lowell, Tom K. Richey. attorneys, and J. NJ. Ormsby, H. A. Drachman and George J Rosk- ruge, trustees of Tucson Lodge No. F. & A. NJ, J. S. Hopely master of the lodge. and w. H. Sawtelle, attorney for the lodge.
 The case is brought in the United States court for the reason that all the plaintiffs. except William H. Be- len. who is a resident of Culebra, Panama and Mary J. Wilson, now re- siding in the province of Ontario, Canada, are aliens.
 D. J. Boleyn. whose proper name, it is alleged, was John Bolen, had been resident of Tucson since about 1876 and during his residence there ac- quired property valued at about $25,- 900. He was for many years chief o1 the fire department of Tucson and in the course of his duties he Sus- tained injuries from which he died. After his death it was found that he had left d will devising all his real estate and his stock in building and loan associations to the Masonic Lodge of Tucson" He also left to the lodge a musical instrument de- scribed as my fine violin" togeth- CT with all credits and claims due him. To William Reid he left my bright violin to Carlos Jacome he devised d large folding bed and MT. Jacome was made the executor of tho will. To a former friend, w. s. Bartlett was left certain furniture and papers with the direction to de- stroy by fire all that he might re- gard as useless
 Not long after his death. news of it was received by Catherine Bolen, a resident of Dundas. Ontario, who subsequently entered into an agree mentment with MessrS. Lowell and Richey of Tucson, to represent her an the heirs in an attack to be made upon the will. According to the con- plaint they were to receive 25 per cent of all that they might recover to the amount of $10,000 and 2 per cent on all over that sum. It is al- legged that they were to undertake the expense of the litigation and to pay the expenses of the widow to Tucson and to meet certain other ex- penses, necessary to the proof of her relationship with Boleyn.
 The matter came up in probate court before Judge w. F. Cooper now superior judge of Pima county. It was shown that Catherine Bolen and John Bolen. a sailor, were married in Ontario in 1868 and that the plain tiffs other than the widow were the children of that union. It was al legged that Boleyn deserted his wife and children in 1876. There does not seem to have been much controversy over these matters. There appeared in the litigation one Mary Alice Gill Bolen Bretzth, who claimed also to be a widow of Boleyn, having mar ried him at Los Angeles in 1878. But her claim was quickly disposed of and she was ruled out of the case.
 1t is stated in the complaint filed yesterday that the court decreed half the estate to the widow and the Oth- CT half to the heirs, each an eighth share of the entire estate It is all legged that the Masonic order threat ened an appeal to the district court unless a settlement should be arrived at and to oppose at once an order Of distribution of 1000 to the widow to meet her immediate needs.
 A settlement was reached, it is al- legged in the complaint, by collision among the attorneys for the plaintiff and those of the eXecutor, and the Masonic lodge, and that the agree ment was signed by the plaintiff and her son. Frederick c. Bolen. who was in Tucson both without an under standing of the nature of it and which left them with an infinitesmal part of the estate.
 After this agreement the probate court ordered a distribution of the estate under it, though it is now claimed that the order did not con form to the original order of the court to the terms of the agree ment as they were understood by the widow and the heirs who participated in it and after the admission of the state Judge OWent T. Rouse. who had been retained by the plaintiffs, at tempted to appeal from the order to