94
THE GREEN BAG
assailed by the other proponents as being a forgery. The Court of Probate ultimately sus tained the charge of forgery, excluding the olographic, or Evans will, as it was styled; but rejected the other will also, upon the ground that it had not been executed and witnessed in the manner required of non resident testators. What is known as a tutrix was then appointed by that Court, who was awarded custody of the estate. Later on, one of the grandchildren of Mrs. Gaines, arriving at legal age, was appointed administrator by the same court. In the meantime, both these instruments were presented for probate in the Surro gate Court of Kings County, New York, the residence of Mrs. Gaines. The same objections were there urged against the olographic — Evans — will, the benefici aries in it being in no way related to the decedent. That court decided it was a forgery, and admitted the other as the true will of the testatrix. From these rulings, the defeated pro ponents appealed to the Supreme Court •of New York. Thereupon the Surrogate appointed the public administrator of Kings County a special administrator of Mrs. Gaines' estate, pending such appeal. Shortly thereafter, that official presented his credentials and demanded authority from the New Orleans Court of Probate to take possession of the estate in Louisiana. From the order of that Court ignoring such credentials and refusing to make the order demanded, an appeal was taken to the Su preme Court of Louisiana. That Court re versed the Court of Probate, deciding that
the will so admitted in New York was to be recognized in Louisiana as the valid will of the testatrix, notwithstanding the pend ing appeal in New York. The New York administrator again peti tioned the Court of Probate of New Orleans for an order entitling him to possession of the estate — the sole asset being a judg ment against the City of New Orleans for something over nine hundred thousand dol lars. This petition was disallowed, and an other appeal carried to the Supreme Court, which again reversed the New Orleans Court of Probate, directing the surrender to be made. But on a petition for re-hearing, this decision was modified pursuant to stip ulations of the respective parties, whereby the residuum of the estate only was ordered so transferred, after certain disbursements were made under authority of the New Or leans Court of Probate. Pending these later proceedings in Louis iana, the Evans proponents made abortive efforts to have their opponents punished for alleged contempt of the New York Su preme Court in thus proceeding in the other state. In due time, the decision of the Sur rogate was affirmed by the New York Su preme Court, on the broad ground, so far as the Evans will was concerned, that it was shown conclusively by the evidence to have been forged. From that decision an appeal was taken to the court of last resort in New York, the Court of Appeals, by which, in November, 1897, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed uncon ditionally by a unanimous court. SAN DIEGO, CAL., January. 1906.
