The Express.
London, England, 1867-09-24 00:00:00

AN EITIL4ORDINARY WILL CASE IN THE

UNITED STATES.

(From the New York Tribune, Sept. IL)

One of the most remarkable cases on record,
destined to rank high among the causes Wares, is now
the talk of Boston. The evidence, taken before examiners
some months since, but only just published, fills • large
volume of a thousand pages. The amount involved ex-
ceeds • million of dollars. The arguments in the case
before the United States Circuit Court, Justice Clifford
presiding, commenced last Friday. It is • snit in
equity, brought by Hetty H. Robinson against
Thomas Mandell and others. Miss Robinson (now Mrs.
Green) was, previous to her marriage, one of the richest, if
not the richest, spinster in the United States ; her pro-
perty, which she inherited from her father, was commonly
reputed to be worths,ooo,ooo dole. It appearsthat heraunt,
Miss Sylvia Ann Howland, who died in 1865, left • will
bearing date September, 1863, and a codicil executed in
1864. 13y this will and codicil Miss Homeland disposed of
about 700,000 dole. in private legacies, the largest, of
200,000 dole., to Thomas Mandell, her lawyer, we be-
lieve ; 115,000 dole. to her physician, Dr. Gordon, and
from 4,063 dole. to 15,000 dole. to each person in her em-
ployment. She left also 340,003 dole. for public and
charitable purposes, of which the city of New Bedford,
where she resided, was to receive 320,000 dole. The residue
of her estate, amounting, it is said, to about a million
' was to be placed in trust, the income to be paid to Miss
Robinson dining her life ; the principal, on her decease,
to go to some of the testator's relatives. Miss Robinson
contests her aunt's will. This is, in itself, remarkable

enough, seeing that the young lady, already the possessor
of millions, is entitled, under it, to an annuity that would
add some 60,000 or 70,000 dole. to her annual income.
What she contends for is the whole of her aunt's estate, in
fee, supposed to be worth about two millions.
The ground upon which she contests the above will and
codicil is noteworthy. It seems that Mias Howland had
quarrelled with her brother-in-law the father of Mies
Robinson, and being resolved, if possible, to exclude him
from all share not only of her own property, but of his
daughter's also, she proposed, about September 1860, to
her niece' then about 23 years old, that if she (Hiss
Robinson) would make a will so that her father
should inherit no part of her property, she (Miss
Howland) would, in return, make • will leaving
everything to her niece ; the will of each to be
deposited with the other, and neither to make any other
will without notice to the other, and returning to that
other her will. Miss Robinson agreed to this, sad the wills
,-7ere executed accordingly. But the subsequent will and
codicil made by the aunt in 1863 and 1864 were executed
without notice to the niece. Thus arose • question of law,
• novel question in the courts of this count' Jr, namely,
whether a contract for mutual wills, if proved, can be
enforced as being without consideration and against puVe
policy and good morals.
But the most singular feature in this awe still remains
to be stated. To the will originally made by Miss Howland
lin favour of her niece there is an addition, sewed on with
fine thread to the first page, not changing any provision of
the will, but a sort of protest by the testator against the
ve'dity of any subsequent wall which she, under undue
influence from those around her, might be induced to
make. Part of the text is : " I implore the judge to
decide in favour of this will, as nothing could
induce me to make • will unfavourable to my
niece ; but being ill, and afraid, if any of my caretakers in-
sisted on my making • will, to refuse, as they might leave
Imeor he angry. • . . I give Oil will to my niece to
show, if absolutely necessary to have it appear against
another will found after my death." Miss Robinson tes-
tifies, under oath, that she wrote this appendage to the
will at the suggestion of her aunt, and that her aunt signed
it in duplicate in her presence. The defence to this is
nothing lees than a charge of forgery.

WILTS= RKPORT.-(THIS DAY.)

TITUDAY, SIPTIXIIRS U. II LL

r.l Its6erBs. 6•A
T. W. lio • ~, W. B. Ito
11 lt. D. I 1 9.
:41ra .. Lit N.N.W.
6 WAR. or,
:7.41 :
WU
Arizonan- 811 N.N.W. 9 N.N.W. ob 0.10 4
Groemmotlo .31 N.N.W. 7 W.N.W. re 0.43'
I -
oil
va•ntia..
Rocheo Point 3368 N. 6 N. e - 4
livorpool .12 118, N.W. I W. o 0.14 7
Holyhead - -
Pussosoo .3067 N.N.W. 7 N.N.W. c 0. 6
Drool
Lodes( -
.20 67 N.W. 6 . W.N.W. o -I 11
loolsolort .16 68 W. 11 W. tr OM 2
Plymouth
Weymouth .2.156 N.N.W. 8 W. elt &IV 6
Portmooatb 10.12 54 N.N.W. 8 W. re 0.04 4
[oedema
_ 1.110.07 111 N.W. 7 - R.B. W. re 0.01 -
Tormoutl 20 90 62 N. W. 6 && W. r 6.33 3
Darboroub DM lit N.N.W. 8 B.R. oe 0.04 5
81te1ds 80.03 U N.W. I I BR eb , 8