His second marriage was to Mary Susannah Walkerley, aka Polly, 1855 in Fulstow, Lincolnshire, died 1936 in Grimsby. Harry & Polly had 4 children, all half siblings to my grandfather Stan Doughty, born 1880 died 1924. In researching the Walkerley family, I found that many came from North Thoresby, a village about 6 miles south of Grimsby. Polly's uncle was William Walkerley, born 1818 in North Thoresby & died 1887 in San Francisco, California, USA. Working in Grimsby Central Library I found a newspaper article by Peter Chapman in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph entitled "The Walkerley Millions"
William
Walkerley born May 24, 1819, the son of John Walkerley & Mary Marshall, did
not see his future on the Marsh of Lincolnshire, or in Louth or Grimsby , but in 1842, emigrated to San
Francisco , via Liverpool , New York , Ohio , Chicago and St
Louis . He served as a soldier in the latter sections
of the Mexican War and returned to Lincolnshire .
Failing to convince his brother Martin Walkerley (born 1826), he returned to USA alone and followed the Santa Fe Trail with a
trail of mules and oxen to California .
He opened a mercantile store at Chinese camp, Tuolumne
County , beyond San
Joaquin River near Yosemite and supplied the gold miners, which proved very
successful. Martin Walkerley joined him here. They employed a Henry W
Whitworth, born North Thoresby as a teamster to ferry stores from Stockton to Chinese Camp.
Having made their fortune at Chinese camp, William bought large quantities of
grain from Whitworth and had it shipped from California
to Liverpool . Later he became a property
developer, building property in San
Francisco , making his fortune. He lived in Nob Hill
rubbing shoulders with a Randolph Hearst, a mining magnate and millionaire.
William was unmarried all this time, but in his 60's met a young society woman,
from Oakland ,
married her and had a young son, but in 1884 he died, after 2 years of marriage
leaving a fortune of £250,000. He did not leave a will, or if he did it was
invalid.
Back in Lincolnshire ,
Harry Doughty (my great grandfather), had married Mary Susannah Walkerley, and
a Robert Johnson had married another Walkerley daughter. Both decided to
contest the will, and not wanting to make the journey themselves sent
young Dick Johnson, Robert's son to San
Francisco . Dick was 20 years of age, bright and a
first class joiner. He had been apprenticed to the Grimoldby builder John
Broadley. Broadley was a local Liberal councillor and a temperance champion.
Dick was working for Harry Doughty in his building business, when he heard
about the death of his Uncle William, and the will, and set off for San Francisco , his fare
being paid for by Robert and Harry. He travelled by train from New York to San
Francisco to pursue the claim. Back at home, Robert
and Harry knew nothing of William's marriage, the young widow or the son, so
the pursuit of their claim to William's will by young Dick Johnson did not go
down well in San Francisco .
Litigation dragged on for some 9 months during which time young Dick had to pay
his own way, no doubt through his trade as a joiner. Eventually the judge in
the case awarded the will to the young widow, and then 2 weeks later married
the widow! The newspapers at the time reported that Dick Johnson was a
barrister. Mortified, and penniless, Dick made his way back home to Grimsby , arriving there
on May 21 1885. Then he resumed work with his uncle Harry. Harry and Robert's
plan for the new development of Bethlehem St, Grimsby which relied on the money
from USA could not go ahead, and Dick became an insurance agent for the
Liverpool Friendly society, and Harry Doughty died in 1891 at the age of 34.
Dick Johnson and a Harry Chapman did return to USA
to look for the money sometime later, and Dick's son, Dick Johnson became a
schoolmaster and the head of Wintringham
School in Grimsby .
Well what a story, especially that piece near the end where the judge married the young heiress! I just had to do some research on my own to see if it was true. I turned to the California newspapers where over a period of time I managed to produce this information. As you can see the story was much more complicated, but the articles do mention Mary Susannah Doughty, nee Walkerley as Mary S. Doughty & Harry Doughty. Other names in the article I have used to research the Walkerley family and the Bacon family. Others in USA have used the story to research the Buswell family.
Henry Whitworth, 50 years, in 1880 was a farmer in San Joaquin River, Merced, California according to the census, married to Jane, aged 45, with two sons, George, 24 & John, 21 years. Apparently the last
vestige of the Walkerley mercantile store at Chinese camp, a bullet-ridden iron
shutter was exhibited in the main office of the Wells Fargo office in San Francisco .
The estate of William Walkerley as seen
through the Californian Newspapers-1887 to 1895.
Amongst the passengers on the Nicaragua Steamship
Company's vessel America ,
which leaves this port For San Juan to-day, are William Walkerley & Martin
Walkerley.
Daily Alta
California: California
Newspapers: Sunday March 16, 1884
WALKERLEY—In East Oakland. March 14, Martin
Walkerley, aged 66 years, 3months and 20 days. [Tuolumne and Stanislaus papers
please copy.] Funeral will take place Sunday, March 16, at 2p.m. from the
residence, corner of Sixth avenue and Twentieth street, East Oakland.
Daily Alta California :
19th December 1886
Wm. Walkerley to S C. Johnson, lot on E. line of Front St. , 83.2 N.
of Pine St., N. 50, E. 90. S. 8 inches, E. 46.5 X, 8. 50, W. 4(3.5 ?i, N. 8
inches, W. 00, to beginning, 63, 000 dollars
Daily Alta California ,
Volume 42, Number 13728, 2 April 1887
Marriage
WALKERLEY— BUSWELL –In Oakland . March 29.
By the Rev. J. W. Boss. William Walkerley of East
Daily Alta California :
Saturday September 17 1887
WALKERLEY—In Oakland ,
September 16, 1887, William Walkerley, a native of Lincolnshire , England ,
aged 69 years, 7 months and 9days. Friends and acquaintances are respectfully
invited to attend the funeral on Monday, September 19th at 2 o'clock p.m. from
his late residence, corner of Sixth avenue and Twentieth Street, Oakland,
without further notice.
Daily Alta California :
September 20, 1887
The funeral of William Walkerley took place from
his late residence, at Sixth Avenue and Twentieth-street, at 2 o'clock
yesterday afternoon. The services of the Episcopal Church were read by the Rev.
H. D. Lathrop. The pall-bearers were: A. A. Moore, J. W. Westphall. L. A. Booth, J. J. White, J. P. Weaver, John
Sanborn, P. Jones, A. Hersey ' J. C. Wilmerding, and J. N. Kellogg.
Representatives of the Pioneer Society, of San Francisco, of which Mr.
Walkerley was a member, attended and followed the body to the grave.- Deceased
was placed in a tomb at Mountain View Cemetery.
September 27, 1887
Yesterday, Columbus Bartlett, Martin Bacon and
Frank Barker, executors, asked that the will of the late William Walkerley be
probated. The value of the estate is $780,000. Deceased bequeathed to his young
wife the sum of $100,000, to be paid to her when the Walkerley Block San
Francisco, shall be sold. The legacy, meanwhile, to be a lien on said property,
bearing interest at 5 per cent. . To his unborn child, deceased bequeaths
$100,000, under conditions similar to the foregoing. - Martin Bacon is
appointed guardian of the estate of the child. Various other bequests are made
to relatives. Deceased accidentally met the young lady now a widow. She belongs
to a good family, and came west to try her luck in the matrimonial lottery.
September 29th, 1887
It is probable that the codicil to the will of the
late William Walkerley will be contested by his heirs, as it leaves $100,000 to
a child unborn and $100,000 to his widow.
October 4, 1887
The Pioneers met last night. The following members
died during the past month: Edwin O. West, Hugh Wittell, Washington Bartlett, &
William Walkerley.
November 16, 1887
Maurice Dore, Thomas A. Smith and E. S. Hamilton
have filed their inventory and appraisement of the estate of William Walkerley,
deceased. The personal property is valued at about $7000; cash in hands of
executors, $3374, the Walkerley block in San Francisco is valued at 500.000
dollars and brings in a monthly rental of $800 the Howard house, on Stockton
and O'Farrell streets, is valued at $250,000 and brings in a monthly rental of
$1900: the whole of block land in East Oakland, on which the Walkerley
residence is situated, is valued at $25,000. The total value of the estate is
appraised at $782,103 89.
Saturday 3rd December 1887.
Litigation Promised Over the Walkerley and Starr
Estates—
THE EASTERN SHORE .
There is trouble developing over the great
Walkerley estate. Not much over a year ago, aged William Walkerley happened to
spy a comely young woman as he was passing along the street. She was standing
in a front yard amidst children. Some time before she had come to California to live with
a relative. Walkerley was smitten at first sight and ere long became the young
lady's husband. Lately he joined his ancestors.
By his will he bequeathed the widow $100,000, and to her unborn babe,
still in embryo, also 100,000. A few days ago Blanche M. Walkerley, the young
widow, petitioned the Superior Court for a family 'allowance of $420 a month,
and asked the court to set aside the personal property in the mansion in East
Oakland for her separate use and benefit, claiming that she was entitled to it,
and also asserting that under the terms of the will she was entitled to the
family allowance. The other heirs of the deceased are not of the same opinion
as the widow. Mrs. Betsy Newman and John Walkerley, heirs at law and devises
under the will of the deceased, have filed their objections. A kinship war is
on the “tapis”
Daily Alta California :
December 12, 1887
The four-storey structure on the 50-vara lot at
the northwest corner of O'Farrell and Stockton streets is on the market. The
rents amount to about $2000 per month. It belongs to the Walkerley estate.
December 20, 1887
Judge Hamilton yesterday granted Blanche M.
Walkerley $420 per month, to be paid out of the estate of the late William M.
Walkerley. John Walkerley and Mrs. Betsey Newman contested the allowance, and will carry the
contest to the Supreme Court. This is evidence enough that the residuary heirs
under the will contest it in every particular.
January 13 1888
Mrs. Blanche M. Walkerley, the widow of the late
W. M. Walkerley, has petitioned to the Superior Court to have the East Oakland homestead set aside for the use of the
family. The family consists of an unborn infant and Mrs. Walkerley.
January 20th, 1888
A supplemental inventory of the property of the
estate of William Walkerley, deceased, bas been filed with the County Clerk .
The property consists of notes against Frank Barker, dated 1875, for $1000 and
$200, appraised at no value; note of Martin Bacon, given in 1876, for $5347 77,
appraised at no value; note of Samuel Adams, given in 1877, for $100, appraised
at no value: notes of J. G. Lavery for $210, W. Myers $900, and E. M. Arthur
$4720, all also appraised at no value. The following notes are of face value:
John Kelso, $618; Frank Barker. $657 and $436; Columbus
Bartlett . $276.
A note of G. Schultz for SI758 is appraised at no value.
February 15, 1888
Everybody will remember the death of Captain
William F. Walkerley and how he left his vast fortune mostly to his wife, with
100,-000 to a prospective child in case the child should be born alive.
Yesterday the prospective heir became a reality, and at 5 o'clock yesterday morning
young Walkerley began shouting lustily, not for the $100,000, but for something
to eat. He is a good, healthy boy, and both mother and child are doing well.
The infant's weight is ten pounds, and there is every prospect of a long and
happy life.
February 15, 1888
Blanche M. Walkerley, the widow of the late Wm.
Walkerley, has petitioned to the Superior Court for a family allowance of $400
income month, and that all the personal property in the residence of the late
Mr. Walkerley be distributed to her. It is possible that Mrs. B. B. Newman, the
wife of a San Francisco
attorney, and John Walkerley will contest the codicil to the will, which leaves
$100,000 to the wife of the deceased, and $100,000 to a possible heir.
February 18th, 1888
Other heirs to the vast estate of William
Walkerley, deceased, will not it is stated, contest the legacy of $100,000 to
the juvenile widow, and of a like sum to her posthumous baby boy.
March 4th, 1888
John Walkerley and Betsy Walkerley, heirs at law
of William Walkerley, have appealed from Judge Hamilton's order allowing the
widow $410 per month family allowance.
April 14, 1888
Walkerley, deceased. By the terms of the will of
the deceased, Martin Bacon is appointed guardian of the minor. The child is
bequeathed $100,000 in his father's will
The Harvard block, in San Francisco, belonging to the estate, has been
sold for $200,000, and the Court been asked to confirm the sale.
April 21, 1888
Judge Hamilton has made an order setting aside the
order requiring Martin Bacon to give bonds as guardian of the person and estate
of William Martin Walkerley, a minor, who is heir to $100,000.
May 3rd 1888
William Walkerley, by executors, to H W Hyman lot
137 to V M Faucault and Stockton 260,000 dollars.
July 24, 1888
V. M. Faucault, a real estate broker, has been
awarded $1500 by Judge Hamilton as commission for finding a purchaser for the
Howard Block, San Francisco. The property was part of the Wm. Walkerley estate.
Foucault got $10,000 more for the building than was offered by bidders at a
sale. The heirs talk of appealing to the Supreme Court with the intent to get
the broker's fee reduced.
August 18 1888
Mrs. Blanche M. Walkerley filed a petition some
time ago to have a portion of the residence block at East
Oakland set apart as a homestead. Judge Hamilton appointed
commissioners to determine whether a $5000 slice could be carved out without
detriment.
September 4, 1888
Judge Hamilton approved the report of the
commissioners who were appointed to investigate the property in East Oakland of the Walkerley estate) and who reported
adversely to the petition of the widow who applied for a homestead to be
carried out of the property. The widow was given permission to have an amended
petition for a homestead.
September 26, 1888
William Martin Walkerley was born February 14,
1888, his father having died September 10. 1887. The little one is entitled to
$100,000 out of the $500,000 estate, and no one is legally entitled to receive
it for him His mother has asked to be appointed guardian.
October 5th 1888
THE EASTERN SHORE .
There is ' trouble in the Walkerley family. ; One
day, some twenty months ago, wealthy William Walkerley saw a pretty girl
playing with some children in an East Oakland
yard! The young: woman had lately come
from the East. Walkerley fell in love with the comely stranger and married her.
Old age soon asserted itself inadequate to worst dead and Walkerley joined his
ancestors. By his will the widow,
received $10,000 a year, and if she became a mother she was to receive $100,000
and the progeny the same amount. Several
months after the obsequies a child was born to the lucky young woman. Other
heirs to the estate' have been busy combating the widow. The latest move on their
part is a formal announcement that next Monday they will ask the Court to
discontinue the family allowance to her of $420 a month. They allege she has
done pretty well and can relinquish that trifle.
October 13, 1888
The first annual report of the custodians of the
estate of the late William Walkerley has been issued. It may be summarized, as
regards finances, as follows: Cash 'received, $299,389 58; cash -paid out,
$297,470 56; cash on hand, $1919. 02, property on hand other than money: Real
estate, $525,000, personal, $2292 50, total, $527,292 60.
October 23, 1888
Yesterday Judge Hamilton appointed Mrs. Blanche M.
Walkerley guardian of her infant son who is heir to $100,000 from the estate of
his father, the late William Walkerley. By deceased's will Martin Bacon, a
trustee of the estate, was named as guardian of the minor. The mother declined
to recognize Bacon in that capacity and the law has upheld her. There in a
contest over the large amount of property left by the defunct.
October 25, 1888
Blanche M. Walkerley, relict of William Walkerley,
has been granted for a homestead during her widowhood, the very valuable square
of ground and mansion thereon in East Oakland .
The young lady inherited 100,000 from deceased, whom she romantically espoused
and her infant received a similar legacy.
October 30, 1888
John Walkerley and Betsy Newman will appeal to the
Supreme Court from the decision of Judge Hamilton setting aside a house and
the- block of land upon which it stands for a homestead for the use of the
widow.
November 23rd, 1888
Walkerley, Martin Bacon & Columbus Bartlett,
executors of the deceased, yesterday gave notice that they will appeal to the
Supreme Court from the order setting aside the homestead to the widow.
December 3, 1889
The Walkerley Estate.
The Supreme
Court yesterday rendered a decision sustaining the lower court in the matter of
the Walkerley estate. This was an appeal by the executors and legatees under
the will of the testator, from an order setting apart to the widow and child of
the deceased a homestead. The whole of the property of the deceased was his
separate property, and was of the value of $500,000 over and above the
indebtedness. The homestead occupied by the family at his death was of the
value of 18-000, and was indivisible. The court below set apart this homestead
to the widow and child for a limited time. It was contended that that was
error, for the reason that the court could pot set apart a probate homestead
greater in value than $5000. The Supreme Court holds that a probate homestead
is not limited in value to $5000.
December 30, 1888
Two appeals which have been before the Supreme
Court in' reference to the estate of William Walkerley were considered together
and the orders appealed from were amruiou. One appeal was from the monthly
family allowance of $420 to the widow of the deceased, and the other was taken
from an order of the Court, setting apart certain household furniture for her
use. This cause having been heretofore submitted to the Court sitting in bank,
and upon consideration, it appearing that a constitutional number of the
Justices who heard the argument cannot agree upon a judgment it is therefore
ordered that the order heretofore made submitting the case be and the same is
hereby set aside and the same placed upon the calendar to be heard by the Court
in bank.'
October 19th, 1889
The second annual account of the executors of the
estate of William Walkerley, deceased, was filed yesterday afternoon. They have
expended $20,789 67 during the year. The cash on hand is $10,275.
October 21, 1889
William Walkerley, aged two years, inherited
$100,000 from his deceased father's estate. The little fellow is quite puny and
may be a cripple for life. His was a posthumous birth.
October 29, 1889
Attorney Newman, husband of one of the residuary
legatees of the late William Walkerley, was examining the second annual account
yesterday. He says the residuary legatees will object to the allowance of $1000
to the attorney of absent heirs, and a like amount to the attorney of minor
heirs, as well as other items.
February 11, 1890
John Walkerley and Betsey Newman, residuary
legatees under the will of William Walkerley, deceased, have filed objections
to the claim of Columbus Bartlett for $5500 for extraordinary services. They
claim that as he is executor, he cannot secure fees as an attorney for the
estate.
February 13, 1890
Blanche M. Walkerley, widow of William Walkerley,
deceased, yesterday filed an opposition to the petition of Columbus Bartlett,
one of the executors of the estate, to be allowed $5500 extra, compensation for
extraordinary services to that estate.
February 15th, 1890
The absent heirs in the estate of William
Walkerley, deceased, have filed objections to the claim of $5500 of Executor
Columbus Bartlett for extraordinary services.
February 16, 1890
Blanche M. Walkerley, the widow of William
Walkerley, is not satisfied with her family allowance of $450 a month, and has
applied to the court to have it increased to $833 a month. She says that she
has no property except her homestead, and avers that her minor child, the son
of William Walkerley, is a helpless invalid, and will require, from this time
forth, for an indefinite period, the services of a physician and a nurse. All
this, she says, will be expensive, and as the estate is worth 500,000 dollars
over and above all indebtedness, she believes that the sum asked for is a
reasonable allowance.
25th February 1890: Daily Alta California: Eastern Shore
Walkerley, The widow of William Walkerley, is to
have her family allowance increased from $420 to $833 a month, came up for
hearing before Judge Greene yesterday. The executors of the estate objected to
the petition of the widow, and relate that the estate is ready for distribution
and might be speedily closed but for the pendency of a suit against them,
wherein John Walkerley seeks to recover $5000. The case is now pending before
the Supreme Court. The executors also assert that the present family allowance
has been in existence for more than two years and should now cease. They are
willing that the court make an order requiring them to pay Blanche Walkerley in
her own right, and as guardian of her minor child, the annual allowance
provided in the will of the deceased for the support and maintenance of herself
and child, amounting to $110,000. The hearing of the petition was by agreement
continued to next Thursday.
September 30th 1890 (San Francisco)
Jno Walkerley to B. B. Newman, blocks 72 to 75,
174 and I8O, and part of 131 and 176.outside lands 10,000 dollars
November 16th, 1890
Columbus Bartlett has applied to the court to be
allowed §5250 for services as attorney to the executors of the estate of
William Walkerley, deceased. Martin Bacon, Frank Barker and Columbus Bartlett
were appointed executors under the will. The fees for their services will
amount to 53500 each.
November 27, 1890
Martin Bacon and Columbus Bartlett, executors of
the estate of William Walkerley, deceased, have brought suit against their
co-executor, Frank Barker, to recover $1000 on promissory note given to
Walkerley in his lifetime for money loaned.
G Schultz was sued for a value of 1758 dollars for
a promissory note issued 22 06 1880, by the executors of William Walkerley on
June 13, 1888 as reported by Daily Alta California
Daily Alta California
Tuesday February 24th 1891
The late William Walkerley left a $700,000 estate.
Court charges to the" extent of about $40,000 have already been filed, and
the property is yet in process of distribution.
San Francisco Call, Volume 72, Number 68, 7 August
1892
W. WALKERLEY'S WILL.
Bill In Equity Filed to enforce a Special Trust.
A bill in equity was filed in the Superior Court
yesterday at the instance of Mary S. Doughty et al., plaintiffs, against
Columbus Bartlett et al., defendants, to enforce the performance of a special
trust and for the accounting of the trust estate of William Walkerley,
deceased, by the trustees thereof and for other purposes. The testator died
testate in the county
of Alameda September 16,
1887, and duly made and published his last will on June 2, 1887, and
thereafter, on September 7, 1887, duly made and published a codicil to said
will. The value of thee real property of the deceased was $850,000 and upward.
Certain allegations are made of wrongful conversions of money belonging to the
estate by the trustees and executors to their own private use and to other
persons. It is asked that an order, decree or Judgment be entered to declare
that the defendants, Columbus Bartlett, Martin Bacon and Frank Barker, hold in
trust the property of deceased for the purposes directed by the will of
deceased; that the other defendants account for the real and personal property
of deceased which has come into their possession; that the sum of $20,100, received
out of the estate by defendant Blanche M Walkerley, the young widow of the
deceased, as family allowance in contravention of the terms of the will be
adjudged to have been received as interest on $100,000 to be paid to her in
semi-annual instalments during her life; that the decree of the Superior Court
of Alameda County of October 22 1888, settling apart East Oakland block of land
121 to the said Blanche M. Walkerley was beyond the jurisdiction of the court
and was the result of collusion, and that all orders of said court in
connection with the said estate, except
the admission of the will of the deceased, be declared null and void; that the
said trustees take possession of said block of laud and that the should be sold
and the proceeds applied to the trust purposes as expressed in the will It is
also asked that judgment be entered against the trustees for such sum or sums
as may be adjudged to be due from them as executors or trustees to the trust
estate and the beneficiaries under the will for the misappropriation and waste
of the estate and mismanagement thereof, and that the trustees be enjoined from
asking any commissions pending the litigation. The plaintiffs are nephews and
nieces of the deceased.
San
Francisco Call, Volume 73, Number 111, 19 March 1893
MARRIED MONEY. The Romance of an Oakland Reporter.
WEALTHY MRS. WALKERLEY.
A Story That Begins in a Courthouse and Winds Up
at the altar.
New York, March: William F. Burbank and his bride,
formerly Mrs. Blanche M. Walkerley of California ,
are at the Buckingham. They were married near Boston , on Tuesday. After visiting Washington and other places, they will go to Winston
Salem, the twin city of North Carolina , where Burbank owns and edits a
successful daily and weekly newspaper. Their engagement dates from July last.
The report that W. F. Burbank was about to become
the husband of old man Walkerley's rich young widow set society agog in Oakland
more than a month ago. There were a dozen other susceptible young fellows in
Oakland who had tried their charms, but in vain. She favored Burbank . Their courtship began with the
litigation over Walkerley's estate. Burbank, in his capacity as court reporter
for the Oakland Enquirer, became smitten with Mrs. Walkerley the first time he
saw her, demure and blushing, on the witness-stand. He acknowledged to his most
intimate friend that he took frequent occasion to interview her, and quarrelled
with his city editor when the latter objected to the favorable light in which
be presented her case to the readers of the paper, and his bitter condemnation
of all other litigants. He went out to her house one night merely to get an
"interview for his paper," and their love-making began. He was tall, smooth-shaven,
suave, polished and scrupulously dressed. He was young and so was she. In
November, 1891, Burbank took a trip by steamer
to Los Angeles .
Among the passengers was Mrs. Walkerley. This was the time their engagement was
made. Burbank returned to Oakland and sold out several shares of stock be owned
in the Enquirer and started East immediately, while she remained behind to
defend the contest brought against her and the other heirs by B. C. Newman,
representing absent heirs. They have been corresponding ever since, and the
affair culminated when Mrs. Walkerley left suddenly by arrangement three weeks
ago for New York .
She took the overland train from Sacramento and
was escorted to the depot by Harry Allen, a warm friend of Burbank . She met Burbank
in New York ,
and shortly after the marriage took place. Burbank
is a protégé of a rich uncle in New
York , and upon the latter's death will inherit almost
as much as she. He went to Washington after
leaving Oakland ,
and word came back of the wide swath he cut in society. His buggy rides with
Kate Field and Mrs. Frank Leslie furnished topics for the newspaper
correspondents. He was known as a society man. He is now proprietor of the
Winston (N. C.) Sentinel.
The story of the litigation in which Mrs.
Walkerley has been engaged is well known. She was only 22 years old when her
husband, William Walkerley, forty years her senior, died in 1887, bequeathing
her $200,000. She had one son by the marriage. The executors were about to get
the estate settled when Newman brought his contest which caused a legal battle
that so far from being ended.
Mrs. Walkerley, tired of it all and in the hope of
beating Newman, filed a contest herself only a short time before leaving
attacking a trust in the will which tied up $500,000 worth of property for
twenty-five years. She wants the entire trust distributed to herself and minor
son. It had hitherto been a fight against the widow, but she turned the tables.
The contest will soon come up before Judge Greene, and in the meantime she is
practically poor, having only a homestead in East Oakland, which, however, is a
very fine one. It is expected that she and Burbank will soon return to Oakland . She can write
poetry, is an accomplished musician, and therefore has a legion of
acquaintances. She recently read an essay before a meeting of the Christian
Endeavor Society of Oakland. Burbank 's
mother and his brother, Sam P. Burbank, a real estate agent, reside at 1604 Tenth
Street. Oakland .
They had not been informed of the marriage last evening.
The Morning Call, San Francisco May 23 1894
AN HEIR'S DEATH. Little Willie Walkerley leaves
His Wealth.
.
Oakland. With the death of little Willie Martin
Walkerley his mother, who is now Mrs. Blanche Burbank will get the $100,000
which his father, the rich William Walkerley left him when he died. Just before
his death, William Walkerley was told that his wife was about to give birth to
a child. He immediately added a codicil to his will bequeathing the unborn baby
$100,000. He also gave to the mother the same amount.
Yesterday this child died after living a little
over six years, and the mother, who has married a newspaperman named Burbank , will get the
child's portion.
The boy was sickly from birth, his mind being
affected. The best physicians have had charge of him, but they could do little
for him. When the mother married she moved to North
Carolina with her husband, who runs a country paper in that State,
leaving the boy in charge of her mother and sister, Mrs. M. L. Buswell and Miss
Clara Buswell, who occupy the big Walkerley homestead on the corner of
Sixth-avenue and East Twentieth-street, in East Oakland .
The mother was notified of the child's illness and told that he would probably
die and is now on the way to the coast. The minor has been receiving $5,000 per
annum as interest on his legacy, and by an account recently filed it was shown
that be was paying half the household expenses in keeping up the establishment
in East Oakland.
The Morning Call, San Francisco May 24 1894
DEATHS
WALKERLEY In Oakland
May 22ND 1894. Willie Martin Walkerley, beloved son of Blanche M. Burbank and
the late William Walkerley, a native of Oakland ,
aged 6 years 3 months and 8 days.
San
Francisco Call, Volume 78, Number 96, 4 September 1895
WALKERLEY TRUST VOID
The Supreme Court Says the Whole Estate Must Go to
the Widow.
LAW AGAINST PERPETUATION.
Justice Henshaw's Declarations on a Principle That
Affects Other Trusts.
The Supreme Court has declared the William
Walkerley trust to be invalid, reversing the decision of Judge William L.
Greene in the Superior Court at Oakland , and the
entire estate is awarded to the testator's widow, who is now Mrs. William F.
Burbank, the wife of a newspaper man at Los
Angeles . The present value of the estate is nearly
$1,000,000, and Mrs. Burbank will get the entire property. The principal heirs
who are shut out by this decision and the amounts bequeathed to them in the
will are: William Walkerley, the posthumous child, now dead, $100,000 Mrs.
Blanch Walkerley-Burbank, $100,000; Andrew Rumgay, a grandnephew, $2000; Mary
Windley (his sister) or her husband, $500 annually until both should die. Other
heirs were: Martin Bacon, Frank Barker and John Walkerley, nephews of the
deceased, residing in San Francisco; Mrs. Betsey Walkerley-Newman, niece of
deceased, San Francisco; Mary S. Doughty, Jane Johnson, Jane Capes and Hannah
Allison, nieces, residing in Lincolnshire, England; Ann Hollingsworth, niece,
Derbyshire, England ; Mary Smith, niece, Yorkshire; Ann Smiley, niece, York;
Martin Walkerley, nephew, Grimsby; John Walkerley, nephew, Brisbane, Australia;
Elizabeth Binington, niece, Manchester,
The law under which this decision is given is
supposed to apply also to the trusts created by Senator Fair and Joseph
Macdonough, and the Fair contestants are expected to make the most of it.
Summing up that law, Justice Henshaw, the author of the opinion, says, all the
Justices concurring: The law has seen fit to insist that the measure of the
period of suspension shall be lives In being, and it will not countenance the
suspension for any fixed period or term of years for the sufficient reason that
during the time of such a limitation, however short, the person capable of
conveying the absolute interest might die a possibility not to be endured. Bo
it happens that whenever a testator, through temerity or ignorance, violates
the plain mandate of the statute, as in this case, and creates a trust by which
the absolute power of alienation is sought to be suspended for a term of years,
he must pay the penalty of his rashness or folly in the destruction of his
cherished design. The rule against perpetuity does not apply to personal
property trusts. Private trusts in personal property which respect the power of
alienation must be limited by private trusts in realty to lives in being, and
the trusts here are consequently destroyed by the same vice which invalidated
those first considered. The trusts being void, it follows as to property
attempted to be devised in trust that the testator died intestate. It therefore
descends to the heirs living at the time of his death. This is a complete
reversal of the decision by Judge Greene. The latter upheld the will and
codicil of the millionaire, which gave the widow $2400 a year and provided a
trust to run twenty-five years, with Columbus Bartlett and Martin Bacon as
trustees. William Walkerley the capitalist, died on September 16, 1887. He left
a handsome young wife and an estate valued at about $600,000, consisting at
about $5000 of personal
property, the Pacific-Union club building known as
the Walkerley block, and a residence in East Oakland .
Ten days after his death the will was filed, and the litigation over it has
been kept up ever since.
The contest in the Oakland
court brought to the rich young widow, who was an Oakland girl, her second husband, in the person
of William F. Burbank. Mr. Burbank was a reporter on one of the Oakland papers. He did
the work for his paper at the probate trial. Thus he became acquainted with
Mrs. Walkerley and he married her about two years ago.
The child of Mr. and Mrs. Walkerley, born soon
after the capitalist's death, died
last year, and the portion of the estate that
would have gone to him reverts to the mother. The clause in the will that is
declared by the court to have illegally established a perpetuity is as follow.-
; To sell and convey all the trust property and estate at the expiration of
twenty-live years from the date of my death, and to distribute the proceeds
equally among my nephews and nieces or their heirs—the descendants or heirs of
any deceased nephew or niece taking collectively the share which their father
or mother would take provided he or she were living; provided, that no final
sale or distribution of the trust estate be made during the lifetime of my
wife, Blanch M. Walkerley, but only after the expiration of twenty-five years
from the date of my death and after "her death.
Upon the distribution of the proceeds of the sale
of the trust estate among the parties entitled, then this trust shall cease and
determine. Should any one or more of my said trustees die or resign the
remaining trustees or trustee must immediately appoint some suitable person to
fill the vacancy, so as to keep the number of trustees at three. .The attorneys
in the case were: H.C. Firebaugh for the executors, Fred E. Whitney for absent heirs,
B.B. Newman for other heirs, of which his wife is one, Rodgers & Paterson for
Mrs. Walkerley. Mr. Burbank who married Mrs. Walkerley, is now one of the
owners of the Los Angeles Record and be is interested in other papers. George
A. Knight of Knight & Heggerty, one of the firms of attorneys interested in
the Fair will contest, was seen last evening. "As a whole," he said,
"we consider the decision of the Supreme Court to be rather favorable to
our client, Charles Fair, and likely to have a bearing on the contest which has
been begun. We have not yet had a copy of the decision made, and so cannot
particularize, but the general tenor of it seems to incline our way.
"The most important item to us appears to be
the temper of the court regarding
trusts created by wills. This seems to us
favorable to breaking them."
That the points raised by Rodgers &Patterson,
the attorneys for the widow in the
contest of the Walkerley will, have created
widespread interest in the State is evidenced by the number of applications for
copies of their brief, which number over 1000, since the document was filed
four months ago.
San
Francisco Call, Volume 78, Number 113, 21 September 1895
THE WALKERLEY ESTATE was begun in the United
States Circuit Court yesterday by the English heirs to have Barker and Hawkes
removed and a receiver appointed. The estate has been in litigation for years,
and after being tried in the Superior courts of Alameda
and San Francisco counties and the Supreme Court
of California has at last been carried into the Federal courts, and may in time
reach the Supreme Court of the United
States .
The suit is entitled John Walkerley, Martin
Walkerley, Jane Capes , John Johnson,
Hannah Allison, Mary Smith, Annie Finley and Mary
S. Doughty, residents of
Great Britain, vs. Frank Barker, Harry I. Hawkes
and Columbus Waterhouse, trustees of the will of the late William Walkerley;
Mary E. Bacon and Harry D. Hawkes as the executors of the last will of Martin
Bacon, a deceased trustee under the last will of William Walkerley, and William
K. Bacon, Mary L. Bacon, Lizzie M. Bacon, Annie M. Bacon, Mabel B. Hainan,
Frank Barker and Betsy Walkerley Newman. The property in dispute is the Walkerley
block
The complaint made is a very long one. In it the
trustees are charged with having neglected the property placed in their keeping
and through mismanagement allowing it to go to waste and ruin. It also asserts
that the trustees, one and all, converted much of the funds of the estate to
their own personal use.
A fair sample of the charges made is the
following: "They only pretended to carry out their trust. They had no
authority to take possession of the Walkerley estate in this City or the
residence of the deceased in Oakland; yet, without warrant or authority, they
took possession of both, disregarding the trust made in them."
Other charges of a similar nature are made and
then the complainants ask that a receiver be appointed for the estate and that
Trustees Barker and Hawkes be removed. They also demand an accounting and ask
that the defendants be compelled to turn over to the court all the funds of the
estate now in their possession. William Walkerley died on the 16th of
September, 1887, leaving an estate valued at $700,000. The plaintiffs in the
case were his nieces and nephews, and it is they who 1 have been fighting the
trustees for the past seven years. It is said that when the case comes to trial
it will become very interesting, as Mrs. W. J. Burbank, who was the dead
millionaire's wife, is going to take a hand in the action. She evidently thinks
that her interests are suffering and that she should do something in the matter.
All the papers in the case have now been served, and when the action comes to
trial some interesting developments are promised.
San Francisco Call, Volume 79, Number 24, 24
December 1895
MRS. BURBANK
WINS.
Failure of the Suit of the British Walkerley Heirs
in the United States
Circuit Court.
By the action of the United States Circuit Court
yesterday Mrs. William F. Burbank of Oakland ,'
widow of the late William Walkerley, is made secure in her possession of her
dead husband's estate. A short time ago several British heirs made an effort,
by filing an "action in this court, to set aside the California Supreme
Court decision and to have the trust, which the State court had declared void,
carried out. The suit was brought against Columbus Bartlett, Frank Barker and
Martin Bacon to compel a specific performance of the trust. The State Supreme
Court had declared the trust void on the ground that the designation of a
period of time conflicted with the California
statute and, in effect, might defeat the very purpose of the testator. The
Federal court agreed with the State court in regretting that the expressed
wishes of Walkerley could not be carried out. United States Circuit Court Judge
Beatty rendered the decree yesterday which put an end to the litigation. He
simply found for the defendants and dismissed the bill, basing his action on
the position token by the State Supreme Court. The Walkerley estate included
the Pacific-Union Club property on Post and Stockton streets.
San Francisco Call, Volume 85, Number 127, 6 April
1899
Deaths
NEWMAN—In this city, April 4. 1899, at 1 o'clock
a. m. Betsy Walkerley Newman,
niece of the late Martin and William Walkerley, a
native of Lincolnshire .
England .
"The funeral will take place this day
(Thursday), at 1 o'clock, from her late residence, 2115 1/2 Howard street . Interment
private.
Walkerley, Martin ... died in 1884 ... age 56 ...
1884D-5281
Vital Records for 1869-1900
Walkerley, Betsy ... married in 1873 to Newman,
B.B. ... 1873M-3008
Walkerley, Willie Martin ... died in 1894 ... age
6 ... 1894D-5789
Walkerley, William ... died in 1887 ... age 69 ...
1887D-4576
Walkerley, Willie Martin ... died in 1894 ... age
6 ... 1894D-5789
William Walkerley's Tomb at Mountain View Cemetery, Oakland, California. http://mountainviewpeople.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/william-walkerley-1818-1887.html
The plaque inside:
So there you have it, a great story, the actual events happened 3 years later than written above, and the ending was somewhat different, but most likely the person who told the story to Peter Chapman wasn't aware of all the facts either.
No comments:
Post a Comment