The Battle for the Yesler Fortune
Legal teams spar in the high-stakes probate battle over the estate of Seattle pioneer Henry Yesler.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The argument occupied the whole of yesterday in the Yesler will case in Justice Humphrey's courtroom. Mr. White completed the argument of his motion for dismissal, and John Fairfield opened in reply for the state. Mr. White argued that the complaint charged a felony that had been merged in the actual destruction of the will, and denied the existence of evidence showing that Mrs. Yesler or anyone else had destroyed it. He disputed the existence of a conspiracy, suggesting that the state's reliance on meetings between the parties and Van Buren's testimony was unfounded, and that Van Buren, who claimed to have seen the will, was a disgraced witness. John Fairfield, representing the state, argued that a conspiracy must be proved by circumstantial evidence, and that the concurrence of action on a material point was sufficient to presume concurrence of thought. He emphasized the stark difference between Mrs. Yesler's expected inheritance and her husband's estate, suggesting avarice as a motive.
“There is a tide in the affairs of women, which, taken at the flood, leads—God knows where.”
Henry Yesler was a founding father of Seattle, and his estate was one of the largest in the city’s early history. Disputes over his wealth, his will, and his widow's intentions mirror the ongoing civic obsession with how local dynasties shape the city's power and land ownership.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.