The Yesler Will Case: A Dead Millionaire, a Missing Will, and a Widow on Trial

The argument in the case of Mrs. Yesler was continued before Justice Humphrey yesterday, and is likely to occupy today also. John Fairfield completed his argument for the state and was followed by Col. E. M. Carr on the same side. Carr will finish this morning and will then be followed by W. H. White in reply. Mr. Fairfield massed the facts against Mrs. Yesler in a masterly manner and made a powerful argument in favor of holding her for trial. He began by defending Mrs. Fay against Mr. White's aspersions on her veracity, showed the importance of the blue-envelope incident in connection with the other events of December 14, and pointed to Mrs. Yesler's telling Mrs. Fay that she was going to burn her correspondence as unnecessary and therefore significant. Mrs. Fay's visits to Mr. Lowman, he said, were quite natural, as were those to himself and Daniel Kelleher, and she was simply promised compensation for any loss of earnings she might suffer by remaining in the city to testify. Dr. Annie Russell's warning to her to be cautious, that lady's ingenuity in inveigling her into Dr. Jordan's office on January 23, Jordan's hasty departure on the pretext of going to the bank after banking hours, and the silence which reigned when she asked about Harold's visit and what she heard Mr. Yesler say about the will were all sharply commented on. The sudden summons by Dr. Loynes to Kellogg was explained as intended to inform the latter that inquiry was being made about the will. After some sarcastic remarks on Mr. White's treatment of the testimony of John Reynolds, Mr. Fairfield went on. The fact that Mr. Yesler gave his will to Reynolds showed that he was in the habit of having a will, but at that time was about to marry, and so wanted to revoke the will in question. Mrs. Yesler's statement to Reynolds on November 29 that she knew nothing of her husband's affairs was shown to be false by F. H. Peterson's testimony that he had told her within a week that Mr. Yesler had told him his will was made, and was pointed to as showing conclusively that she wished him to die intestate, having in mind that she would in that case inherit. At the time of her conversation with Mrs. Fay she was feeling her way to see when the time was ripe for the destruction of the will. The manner of Mr. Yesler's illness, the rumors reported to him by Reynolds that he had conveyed the Pioneer and Yesler properties, were evidence that he had made a will. Everybody expected that he would leave a large part of his property to charitable objects, for he had said so. Reynolds's statement of his suspicions about Lowman showed that he was not a paid emissary of that gentleman. Mrs. Yesler's objection to Reynolds talking to Jordan about the will was accounted for by the theory that she did not wish to appear to have knowledge of it. Then Van Buren's statements that there was a will were gone over to confirm Mrs. Fay's evidence and to show the conclusion to be inevitable that the will was in the custody of Mrs. Yesler. White's claim that Mr. Lowman's interest in the discovery of the will did not begin until he was informed that he was left the Yesler building was met by the statement that he was first told the will left him nothing, yet was just as anxious and never flagged in his efforts to carry out Mr. Yesler's last wishes. Mr. Fairfield accused Mr. White of damning Lowman by faint praise, and said the truth was that, but for Mr. Lowman's fidelity and integrity, Yesler would have been a pauper and not a millionaire. Kellogg's testimony was corroborative and convincing. The course of his negotiations with Van Buren was traced, and the intimacy of the latter with Kellogg was brought out. Van Buren's anxiety to find out Yesler's disposition to Mrs. Yesler was accounted for by the doubt whether to tell the will to the former or preserve silence as to its existence to the latter. The speaker held that the person with whom Van Buren said he was negotiating was Mrs. Yesler and not Dr. Russell. He maintained that Kellogg's evidence was admissible because the conspiracy was a continuing one, beginning with Mrs. Yesler's employment of Peterson and running through the negotiations for the sale of the will. The separate acts of the conspirators were admitted; the act of one always had a bearing on those of the others. If Van Buren ever told the truth, it was to Kellogg, no matter what abuse was heaped on him, and was not then acting as a tool. If there was a tool, it was being used by another of the conspirators. The speaker then drew a graphic picture of Van Buren, anxious to get out of the clutches of Jordan, on whom he was dependent for his very clothing and lodging, and promising that when he told his story the woman who had the will would produce it. The prosecution acted sooner than it intended in making the test case and taking the matter out of the hands of the law to be judged by this man, whom he termed a habitual perjurer, before he left the city. In the afternoon Mr. Fairfield cited the case of the will of a Mr. White to answer Mr. White's contention that the contents of the will must have been proved. In that case there was no evidence that it had been destroyed. Mrs. Yesler's will might never be probated, but in no case was this grand jury to consider whether the accused was guilty. The court had not to pass upon the establishment of lost wills, but only to decide whether there was probable cause to believe that the crime had been committed. The speaker then argued that the provisions of the will, as given to him, were reasonable and such as Mr. Yesler would have made, judging from his expressed wishes and his relations to his family. It would not do to say that in committing a wrong the conspirators were being offered the same immunity. He reviewed Rochester's negotiations with the city, declining to pass judgment on Peterson's conduct, and laid stress on Jordan's absence from the secret council meeting. He called attention to Kellogg's statement to the mayor that Kellogg would be a good witness for Mrs. Yesler and to the fact that he afterward took it back, with the remark that the mayor was telling too much to the council; but he argued that there was a beneficiary in view who would be a good witness for that man. Put these two statements together, and there was no other conclusion than that Mrs. Yesler was the witness he had in mind, and that Rochester only took back the statement about Mrs. Yesler because it revealed the identity of one of the conspirators. To George Donworth he gave the credit of saving the city from becoming involved in the matter, but exonerated the mayor. Van Buren betrayed his knowledge of these negotiations with the city, he said, by his mention of Jordan and Rochester in his interview with Kelleher, and at the same time Rochester was asking a contingent fee of 25 per cent, as he had to pay for the testimony of an important witness. Jordan was absent from the secret meeting simply because he was represented by counsel. Mr. Fairfield argued that when such circumstances were placed side by side, no other conclusion could be reached than that the crime had been committed. He then passed in rapid review the main points of the case as brought out in evidence—the existence of a will, Mrs. Yesler's knowledge of it and her denial of such knowledge, Jordan's absence from the council meeting, Van Buren's importunities and negotiations with Kelleher, and Rochester's negotiations with the city. Blending and combining all these circumstances, the court was justified in believing there was probable cause and in sending her before a jury. While Mrs. Yesler had demanded a hearing, the other two conspirators were so well satisfied that they would be bound over that they had waived a hearing. One person charged with a conspiracy could not be discharged and the other two held. Mr. Fairfield then made a powerful peroration, urging that if the defendant was held, those who had the will in their possession might produce it, and if she was innocent, the guilt would be fastened on the real offenders. He agreed with Mr. White that the evidence showed Van Buren had the will. He reminded the court of the charitable bequests and asserted that Mr. Yesler's memory was being wronged as much as the state. Col. Carr followed, also for the state, and prefaced his speech with a compliment to the ability displayed by his brother on the same side. He accused Mr. White of changing his plan of defense by trusting to legal technicalities after he had said he wanted the whole truth and desired all persons interested put on the stand, with the prediction that his client would walk out of court stainless. Mr. White here interrupted with the statement that his change of plan was caused by the state's not calling certain witnesses it undertook to call. Mr. Carr retorted that the state had not consulted Mr. White as to the witnesses it should call and did not intend to call these hostile witnesses at this stage of the proceedings, though it would call them in rebuttal if Mrs. Yesler were put on the stand. After some pleasantries about the discussion of the case in certain newspapers, Mr. Carr set to work at the legal argument. He denied that defects in the complaint were ground for dismissal, and said it would cut no figure in the superior court, as the case would be tried on the pleadings there. In reply to the claim that the state would have to prove that the document destroyed was a will, he said this would be requiring the court to probate the will, which was beyond its jurisdiction. This contention was absurd, for the conspirators might by the destruction of the will render such proof impossible, then flaunt the fruits of their crime in the face of the law and go unpunished; what it was necessary to prove was the motive. If Mr. White's definition of the evidence necessary to prove a conspiracy were accepted, proof would be impossible unless one or more of the conspirators turned state's evidence. He went on to argue that the separate acts of the conspirators and the inferences drawn therefrom were admissible. Mr. White here asked: 'When a party to a conspiracy has temporarily withdrawn, is his evidence admissible?' Mr. Carr replied: 'Yes; I am glad Mr. White is at last willing to admit that there is a conspiracy. If his client has withdrawn from the conspiracy and is ready to testify, let her come forward. Mr. White has hatched more conspiracies than the prosecuting officer could have found in a year.' Mr. White: 'Yes; there was one in Kelleher's office and Kelleher was a party to it.' This sally provoked a laugh, in which Mr. Kelleher heartily joined, and Mr. Carr said he was well able to take care of himself. He then alluded to Mr. White's virtuous indignation against him for dragging Jordan into the case, and exclaimed: 'Yes; hammer at poor Van Buren all you please, put the stripes on him; hammer at Dr. Russell; but for God's sake, don't say anything against such an honest and noble being as J. Eugene Jordan!' He then outlined, for the purpose of illustration, what constituted conspiracy and how Mrs. Yesler might have been implicated. He pictured her searching for a will and Dr. Russell and Van Buren whispering to her: 'Don't search too diligently for that will; it only leaves you a pittance, and if you find no will, you will get a fortune.' Even if she only acted on that hint and locked her knowledge in her breast, it might be inferred from her silence that she was a party to the conspiracy. What could she do in furtherance of the conspiracy further than keep her own counsel? All that was needed was the destruction or purloining of the will, and the city and the other devisees were defrauded. If Mrs. Yesler were innocent, why did she not come forward and tell what she knew? If she did that she was not called upon to do any affirmative act. Mr. Carr then proved by authorities that the state had a right to prove the meetings of the conspirators, and in reply to Mr. White's strictures on him for showing that Dr. Jordan and Mrs. Yesler had met at Mrs. Dodge's, he said it was the former's own counsel that had taken the brush and damaged her fair name; it was he who cried out and said her chastity was being reflected on. But his rule did not work both ways, for he did not hesitate to drag down any witness on the other side. Few men of Mrs. Yesler's age could have undergone such a cross-examination as he had subjected Mrs. Fay to without having her cheeks made to burn with shame by having some facts brought out, though they did not affect her credibility. He had brought out Mrs. Fay's story, though he must have known that no woman had suffered such a load of sorrow as she had, only to confuse her. He dragged out Thompson only to make a theatrical display, and Kellogg only to gain a temporary advantage. He continually said that Lowman was conducting the prosecution, though he knew that if it was not Lowman, the state prosecuting attorney was false to his oath. Yet when an innuendo suited his client he rose up and said they were trying to blacken her name. Mr. Carr cited a number of authorities to show that the evidence to which objection had been made was admissible and contended that the conspiracy was a continuing one, which could not be completed until its purpose was fully accomplished. Mr. Carr had not finished his argument when the court adjourned till this morning.