Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1903-1919 | View Entire Issue (June 9, 1911)
' KADU3AD8. " strmn FAGS , STORY OF J FORGED WILL AS TOLD BY SUPREME COURT v Woman Tries All Kinds of Schemes to Get Hold of Property Supreme Court Says the Wills "Found" by Her, Some Two or Three of Them, Are Rank forgeries Strange Fa tality That Made It Possible to Prove Where She Was on Every Date She Claimed to Be at Certain Places Reads Like a Novel. OREGON SUPREME Full Text PnbJMed bj Coirtesy of Supreme Contest of Will of James Tonne;, De censed, Umatilla County. In the matter of the estate of James V. Young, deceased. Contest of will. Apual from the circuit court for Umatilla county, Oregon. The Hon. H. J. Bean, Judge. Argued and submitted May 3, 1911. Pendle ton. Douglas W. Bailey, for respon dent. Fee & Slater, and Frederick W. Stelwer for appellants. McBrlde, J. Reversed. James W. Young, a resident of Weston, Umatilla county, Oregon, died on the 26th day of August, 1905, paving real and personal property, approximately of the value of from thirty to "forty thousand dollars. He left a will, bequeathing a farm in Umatilla county to Mrs. Nora Watts, a niece, making no disposition of his alleged witnesses, and it Is practl other property, which, in the absence , cally conceded to be a forgery. Pro of testamentary disposition, devolved . ponent was Indicted for forgery but upon certain nephews and nieces was not convicted. She thereafter who were parties to this proceeding commenced a suit in equity to re in the court below. The -will was ad-j cover the estate of deceased upon an mltted to probate on September 19, alleged contract made by him to her 1905, pnd B. B. Hall was appointed ad- mother, at the time of her divorce mlnlstrator of the estate. from him, wherein It was claimed The nrouonent of the will now ln that he agreed that in controversy is a niece of deceased , muuutciDj ii ui uotraocu , and nlso his step-daughter, being the daughter of his brother. Her mother , :er. belne the was divorced from her nrst husband . reatea in this suit. On February 4, and subsequently married deceased, . 1909, proponent presented to the and in about the year 1891 she sep- county court for probate an instru arated from him and secured a dl- ment purporting to be the will of de vorce. Mabel Warner, then Mabel, ceased which reads as follows: Young, remained in the care of de-1 "Weston, Nov. 21, 1893. ceased, who paid for her care and "I, J. W. Young, before God, make education until 1893, when she went this my last will and testament. To to stay with her mother, and later J my daughter, May Young, I give and married one Cain, by whom she bequeath all my property, In fulflll- had four children and from whom 'ment of a solemn and binding con phe was subsequently divorced, . tract made with her mother. I ap thereafter marrying Warner, her! point I. E. Sallng, my executor, present husband. Under clrcum- "J. v. YOUNG. (Seal) stances which will be mentioned in "I acknowledge this my will apd me iiiumii, one j;iuicoacu iu uavo found In the custody of Hall the ad-! mlnlstrator of Young's estate, a will,! . I 4.- ,t , XTnHn TlTnUa a I'm iwi uuft lvj giu iu iiuia ,aiiD a w. . caiuil, ureguil. niece of deceased, the sum of $300; i "LOUIS RAGLE (X) his mark, Wes to Fred Young, nephew of deceased, ton, Oregon." and brother of proponent, $500; to Proponent claimed that this will Grace Rogers, a niece, $300; and to was sent to her by mall In a sealed proponent residue of the estate, with envelope together with an old mem a request to pay to one Mrs. Picard orandum book which she Identified as the sum of $15 per month for life, one long used by deceased, and that ii II n M n n n t! n ii n n a n u u 81 11 II 11 U R El 11 II II 11 U ei ii ii El a ii n ii ii ii ii u ii fi n 11 H II 11 11 II a ii ii H ii n n n ii n P I p ip wn m i COURT DECISIONS F. A. Turner, B-porter of the Court. This will purported to have been witnessed by Hon. John McCourt, now U. S. district attorney, and W A. Larklns, and was dated October 8, 1903. It was placed In the hands of a firm of attorneys for probate but upon Inquiry the alleged witnesses disclaimed any connection with it, and it was not probated. It Is prac tically conceded to be a forgery. Later another one of her attorneys received through the mail an Instru ment purporting to bo the will of de ceased, bequeathing to Fred Young, a nephew, $1,000; to Lile Young and Norman Young, nephews, $300 each; to Mrs. Picard, a friend, $500 and to proponent $10,000; and all the real and uersonal nrnnprtv nf Har,analA ' --- .J V. . wccaocu, Thl3 will was also repudiated by the of the mother making no claim for ui mo luuilll-l limiting 110 Claim IOr alimony, he would bequeath all his property to proponent. She was de- al monv. he would hpnnonth n i,ic,,,0 a..., t ... luat nenaa 0,511 my iiauiu hiiu ol'l illy seal in presence of the following witnesses, "J- W. YOUNG. (Seal)" "Q 17 WnV H", ... r, go Portland Railway, Light DAILY CAPITAL Thi. k tr as unkaown to her. ?nb? ;' entries was in troduced for the purpose of compari son to dentlfy the handwriting of the entries theren with the will in F.r the Mnie Purpose pro Ponent also Introduced two letters Purporting to have been written by waSed: one to proponent, dated September 30, 1904. and known in '8 defendant's exhibit 61, at.d another purporting to be from tZT1? Slara Youn. the wife of "bit "E". " plalntlfl'11 " Other facts appear in the opinion. valIdltvUn,y,KC0Urt found aSalnst nnni7 proP08ed ! and pro ponent appealed to the circuit court pJnm ,m8 in8trunt In probate. F, decree contestants have appealed to this court McBrlde. J w - . .. tto "aneged w.U,n 'u,fcij, mo not only that It is a forgery, but that the letters and ex- Uln ltP?dU.C,ed b7 proponent t0 ""- 11 are also forgeries. Poetically conceded, and no reasonable person can doubt, that th hiir II fuiyuneu xo convey 0tithe ProPerty of deceased orreries it I. . f,' lmP"Jent hf L K ,s 8 falp Presumption and at 7haWf e.,made ln the lnt'rest whVi.?!"110"1.0' th Person ji 1"ullt 07 lnem. They nrleJ'Ter ln the Possession of proponent and there Is nothing In anv 7rtT 'IcatnB that 8he ad any friend so Interested in her wel fare as to forge wills In her favor d Urn?16, thll T ot thera c not directly to her but to her attorney clil a onorable ntleman, de caned to not im i ' . . k iu dui ii would be an easy matter for proponent mall H J; if n ner behalf to mail it to her attorney. The wlll ere tor her benefit. Who but she could have an interest in fabricating blmw?Ut there 18 dlrect " " ble testimony connecting her with the fabrication of the ffrst allS a will ln her favor. B. B. Hall who was appointed administrator of PvhJ!ef.eState' testlfles that he made exhaustive search for papers belong ing to Young and found no will, ex cept the first admitted t the bank ) nX,?,. :..d ce.a8ed. at til k?,' .the papers of deceased at uunug nis uretlme and was thoroughly. familiar with them and is Positive that the nrohnJl " i"v.vum: Will WHS not among them. ,.n1. MPr,1,.1?J6, proPn9nt called Upon him at thn hnnlr on permission to look over Young's pa pers. This was granted nnd nent, in company with her brother, Fred Young, went with witness into the private room ot the bank and the box was nlnced nnnn ti,a m. "i'" inuic, Ul U- ponent sitting on one side and wit ness on tne other, with the box be tween them. While proponent was examining the contents of the box, Fred Young made some Inquiry as to the location of a lot in Weston and proponent attracted the attention of witness for a moment tn a rlot nlik town, which hung on the wall behind him. When he turned his attention to the box again he found the en velope containing the first alleged will in favor of proponent ln the box. He took it up and proponent said: "Oh, this Is what I have been looking for. It is the last will of Uncle Jim. o if paid DISCOUNT light ectaic JOURNAL, SALEM. OREW.y FRIDAY, JTXE 9, 1911. How long has If been here?" To wnicn qeusuon witness answernd 'Not to exceed a minute nr tvn mtn- Uteg, Madam; Just since you dropped It in there." Hall Hweara that ha knows that the alleged will had not Deen mere previously and he Is a reliable and disinterested witness. The theory of Drononent that Hull was hiding or suppressing the docu ment, is aosura. n ne Knew the box contained a will he had only to re fuse to permit her to exemalne It or to have first removed it from the box and then allowed an examination. The conclusion Is irrealatlhle that she placed the alleged will in the box wmie nis attention was diverted to the map. Her connection with the will sent to Carter la tint an rlonriv shown, though the letters in the sig natures of J. W. Young, in all three ot the alleged wills, are spaced so nearly alike that they might be su perimposed one upon the other and practically coincide. It is a practi cal imnossihllltv fnr a mnn tn nrlis his name three times exactly alike ana mis similarity is strong evidence that all three signatures were traced from a Rlnela eentifna alcmatnra Here we have evidence connecting proponent witn me laoricatlon of two false wills and when she nrndncea a third, Its geunineness is at least open to suspicion. The interest of proponent to forge a will and her dlsnosltlon to dn 8n nrn entnhllQhoH not only by the facts above stated uui uy omer evidence as wen. rnus on November 29, 1905, Bhe wrote as a postscript to a 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 a rainbow," the follow ing: "Phelps, I thinks that rainbow I chased was quite brilliant. I will have a will for probate that will sur prise you." This testimony was ex cluded on the trial as a m-lvileeed communication. But we think it was admissible, as the relation of attor ney and client had terminated at the time the letter was written, and It also contained an indirect threat to commit lorgery and such a commun ication is never privileged. The pro ponent, having voluntarily gone upon the stand as a 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 a 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 Delia Stacey. Many persons of high respectability, ac quaintances and neighbors of Knox, who have anfple opportunity to be- ' come aware of his reputation, say ! that It is bad. It seldom, happens in ' a court of justice that a man' repu tation is so thoroughly impeached by the testimony of disinterested per sons whose opportunities of know ledge are the very best. It is true that some persons of respectability : testify to his good reputation, but those who have known him best and i longest speak otherwise and they are ' greatly in the majority. I The witness Delia; Btacey, daughter of Louis Ragle, one of the reputed . witnesses of the will ln question. Is ' also shown to be a person of bad ! reputation and vicious habits. It la ON MMMMHMMHMTt t aid before the lOth needless to dwell In detail on her life as a girl and woman. It is such as to entirely discredit any statement she might make on any disputed question of fact. The will is dated November 21, 1903, and Knox testlfles that he went Into Young's hardware store to buy something, and that Young called him to sign as a witness. The evi dence shows that Young did not pur chase the store until early in Decem ber, rendering It very unlikely that he was there in charge at the date of the supposed will. Witness Stagg testlfles that he sold the business to Young early in December. The testi mony of Knox is vague and uncer tain In many particulars. He stated to Hall and Watts that he knew nothing that would be of benefit to either side, which, If his present tes timony Is true, was an absolute falsehood. It is ln evidence that Young disliked Knox and warned per sons to have nothing to do with him, as he was a fool and dishonest Ragle's name is written on the docu ment by the same person who wrote the body of it, and what purports to be his mark appears on the Instru ment. He was an illiterate,' unrelia ble drunkard. The evidence shows that Hall was constantly ln the store until the spring of 1894, and it Is in conceivable that Young, who was a careful, prudent business man would have passed him by to select men. one of whom he thought dishonest and a fool, and the other a drunken sot, who could not write his own name, to witness the most Important document he had ever executed. There is usually Borne sentiment which comes to the surface when a man sits down to execute his last will. He generally calls on his near est and closest friends to witness his signature and selects persons who are reliable members of the com munity and whose word will be re ceived when hs own voice is silenced ln death. He deposits it In the cus tody of some reliable person and tries to make sure that It will be pre served. But proponent would have us believe that James W. Young did none of these things. In the light or me evidence we would be com pelled, in order to sustain this docu ment, to believe that, disregarding the care and attention that he de voted to the preparation of his first will the one drawn up by Parks he chose to write his own will with a pencil, upon a scrap of paper, and call In two of the most worthless Tharacters In the community to wit ness It; and this in the face of the fact that the will regularly drawn up by Parkes was then in existence; that he deposited this document with some unknown person who had not the decency to declare its existence or to disclose him own name; that he made no mention of his prior will and did not destroy It, and told none of his intimate friends that he had made a second will. In view of his careful business habits this is in credible. Delia Stacey's account of the execution of the will Is full of improbabilities. . She testifies that she, her father, Norman Young, Knox and J. W. Young were in the store of J. W. Young at WeBton; that she was then about 17 years of age; that Young called her father and Knox to witness on paper and then they asked him what it was, he said, "Well, if you must know It is my will;" then he signed the paper and handed it to Knox who signed it; i Gas & Power that Young then wrote something and handed it to Ragle who made his mark; that Young then folded it, put it In a black pocketbook and placed" the book In his Inside coat pocket She carefully described the size and color of the pocketbook which corresponds very closely with the one which proponent claims to have received with the alleged will when it came to her through the mail. Witness testifies that she was standing about 12 feet from Young when all this took place, and yet she distinctly everything that was said and all that was done, after a lapse of 16 years. That a girl of 17 years, with no particular reason for notic ing or being interested In the tran saction, should attend to and remem ber all these details is not probable. It is absolutely certain that she was not ln Weston on the 21st day 6f No vember, 1893, the date of the will. She was a witness ln a criminal case In La Grande, 45 miles away, on the 20th. After this cause arose and it was known that she would he a wit ness it came to her knowledge that a detective was ln La Grande look ing up her record, and It would have been dangerous for her to swear that Bhe was ln Weston on the 21st so she fixes a later date. Though she went by another route, she reached home as soon as possible, by claiming that she rode across the country on horseback. But Bhe was not there on the 21st, so that to sus tain her story It must be assumed that the date ot the will is Incorrect The very last thing 'that a man Is likely to date Incorrectly Is his will. She was an old time friend of propo nent, and just the sort of a person she would naturally select to aid her In a scheme to manufacture evidence to fit her contention. The evidence does not show proponent's course of life to have been such as to entitle her to much credit as a witness. An associate and intimate friend of Del- la Stacey in girlhood, and after her marriage living apart from her hus band and children, wandering around over the country with itinerant vau deville shows, where she was en gaged in "singing and dancing, rag dancing, Spanish dancing, Scottish dancing, and Buck and Wing danc ing, she does not present an attrac tive picture of American motherhood and womanhood. There is some evi dence tending to show that, during her early girlhood, deceased enter tained a strong affection for her, but that Inter, probably from her own misconduct and disregard of his wishes and poBslbly from a mere whim this regard changed to Indif ference or positive dislike. Grace Rogers testifies that "Young was sulky with her and I have every rea son to believe his dissatisfaction was about her association with Delia Ra gle." The same witness also testi fied that In the fall of 1893 Young re ferred to Mabel and her mother as that "damned outfit" and said that af ter she left she had stolen his ring, and that when he met her afterwards In Pendleton he refused to shake hands with her. She went away with her mother in the fall of 1893 and the mother subsequently Bued Young for $62 as wages for Mabel while she was with him. Referring to this ac- tlon In a conversation with Mrs. Meinera he said. "The devil would get mad. I thought I was done with 'them people but they have sued me again for wages.' To Mrs. Phillips he said that this was the last he Co. rAGK THR1 ever Intended to do and he hoped ha was through with the accursed fam ily. It is worthy of notice that th will now in question bears data of November 21, 1S93, the very day this suit for wages was settled ln Pendle ton. It seems very lnprobable that deceased would select this very time to write a w!U tn favor of proponent and It is quite probable from the tes timony that he was ln Pendleton on that date, settling what he deemed an . unjust action brought against him In proponent's behalf. The will itself, and the letters and exhibits presented by proponent for comparison, while fairly skillful Imi tations of the handwriting of de ceased, differ from it in many Impor tant particulars. Deceased was a poor penman and worse ln his ortho graphy, and while a fairly good busi ness msn waa evidently a man of lit tle education. In many Instances, upon his books and checks, the name of I. H. Baling appears and he Invar iably spelled it incorrectly "Sailing." In the supposed will It is correctly spelled. It is hardly probably that he deviated in this one single in stance from his invariable habit, both before and after, of spelling the name. Deceased had also an almost unchangeable habit of making a cap ital "I" approximately thus, "I" or "I," the stem being made first and the upper turn being completed by separate stroke of the pen, and al ways touching or projecting beyond and to the right of the top of the stem. In several score of Instances, occurring in his genuine writings, there appears only one where this manner of making the letter has not been followed. In the proposed will and alleged letters to Clara Young, and proponent, and ln the memoran da in the pocketbook the prevailing type of capital "I" when viewed un der a microscope appears approxi mately thus "I" or "I", the glass re vealing a distinct space between be tween the stem and the upper turn of the letter. In his true writings he had a characteristic and very un usual way of making a capital "N". thuB "N" the upper turn and down ward stroke at the last never being omitted. In the supposed will and tn the letters and memoranda above alluded to the capital is made ap proximately thus "N" showing a fairly well made standard capital "N" not seen In any of his other writings and with the upper turn and shading at the end of the letter en tirely omitted. Another common characteristic ln his writing was when writing words containing "th" he would cross both the "t" and the "h", thus "th" or "th". In the alleged will and other documents referred to these letters are crossed approxi mately thus, "th" or "th" or "th",the "t" Itself not being crossed. In the tetters before referred to the words -"letter" and "better" are propertly spelled, and ln other genuine letters they are mis-spelled "leter" and "beter." ' There are many other marked dif ferences between these exhibits and his genuine writings but it Is useless to prolong this opinion by citing ex- amples. There is a marked resent blance . In these documents in some respects to the genuine writings of deceased, but such resemDiance is ma ' essence of forgery. The Imitation is clever, but that is all. It Is a fact known to everybody that the hand- (Continued on Page 6.) iimwM m wkpwwI" w wm ww mm 4mtkmd iwd iii it J mm w m mm im a inn "i r " 13 11 M U ri u E! I! II fl I i 0 v i ! I; f il 1 1 i 1 ti u tj ti ',; n u ti ii ii n M 11 11 11 II 11 11 tl 11 11 II 11 11 U IT 11 U tl M II m n n n '4 ."' ii tj