Daily Alta California, Volume 36, Number 12471, 8 June 1884 — A FORGOTTEN WILL. [ARTICLE]

A FORGOTTEN WILL.

A Novel Point Raised Over the Administration of the Brayton Estate.

An unusual point has been raised in Alamoda county on the question of the proof of the will of Mrs. Mary E. Brayton, whose estate in Oakland and Berkeley is worth upwards of $150,000. Mrs. Brayton lived for some years before her death in Italy, where she died, and before leaving she intrusted to E. C. Sessions, President of the Oakland Bank of Savings, two wills, which he preserved under her direction. Sessions was a witness to the second will, but never read it, and subsequently he received a letter, from the deceased, then in Europe, directing him to destroy her will. Accordingly, Mr. Sessions opened the envelope containing the second will, and opening it to look at the first clause so as to be sure of having the right document, he destroyed the will without, however, having read it any further than the first words. After Mrs. Brayton's death, in looking over some papers he came across the old will of Mrs. Brayton, which both he and the testatrix had probably forgotten all about. Henry Rogers was named as executor, and to him the will was handed by Mr. Sessions. It was offered for probate in due course, and yesterday Judge Hamilton of the Alameda County Probate Court, admitted it to proof, refusing the application of Colonel W. C. Little for letters of administration. The will was dated in June, 1876, and the destroyed will was dated several years subsequently, but it is not known exactly when. It was claimed that Mrs. Brayton's actions showed that she meant to die intestate, but Judge Hamilton held that her actions or declarations did not comply with the provisions of the Code respecting the revocation of wills. The provisions of the will now proved are quite complicated, and the most important of them has been rendered nugatory by the death since of the testatrix' son, Henry Brayton, who was the principal devisee. The principal contest was on the right to administer, as the bulk of the property goes to the heirs-at-law in any case.