New-York daily tribune., 1856-04-26
srRRoGATE,s CoURT-sprI sS-Befcrs the Hon A. W


PROBATE OF TIE WILL OF HENRY PARISH.
The Court opened at 10 clock.
CroSs. examination of Daniel Lord, resumed-l am
upabe to state the hour arrived AT NJ Pau'h :, on
the 7ih Of September, 1883 or how long stad sa~
Mr. aud Mrs. Parish DO not remember say street;
presume il by an appointment, from The course
OF my visits there, and speaking without any ceaAite
recol Cton, have impression that on eodIr Ot the
day. between the 6ih anu the 18th OF September, L
called in ibe mcniog AMI Ut able to -tsy, aud on
that day went agar IN the atterLoon; teat vas on
the eth old iii joSn in the afternoon aud had some
convers ersaon with Mr.. and Ms. Parish; have GO par
tlcusrecoleetiop OF conferDg with Mn. PARISH sepa-
rat,l st her house on these visits; don't remember
on any of these ca seeing otthese parties without
seeing the other; have no cistiact rvcO1eetion OF
seeing Mr.. Parish that morning; the transactions OF
that dAy psssei into those of the following days 80
that cannot distinguish them; the interview on the
afternoon of that day could not have exceeded an
hour IL length, and thIOk was very baef; | prooa-
Div sa~ the Grs codi,l, but nothing was done about
II on the 9Th Of September 1883 was the principal
interview; my first address 10 Mr. Parish then was IN
substance the terms of ordinary cvhty and recognl-
ton probably exprtss pleasure TO see hm 80 wei;
in the course of the cooquy the next address to him
would have been, and probably was, If We should take
~ the codic; bave dOub, of addressing such an
Eauiiy but have distinct recollection 10 my mind
of il; he answered yes; his articulation aud his
general condition much better th<n when had
him in ls49 my general recoect N OF the artlcu-
lat on of Mr. Parish when be expressed assent by the
word YES dissent by the word 10, - aecompaoi-d
with a moytmtGt Of The head | would also add that
lie had very intelligble mode OF expressing by an
inari uate sound Ot InQuifng ar wanting c0nluni-
cation. ard lis assent and dissent by YES ant no
was made with variations indicating more or less
prouptuCss in his determination; | mean TO say
Ia ?, 'ntou as 10 all the patculanes a. 10 all the
auestou 81 frequently addressed 10 me that speak
Iot from conjecture, bat from conviction. not always
from dstiLCt feature IN tie memory, but nom an un-
doubted Pr s,on to the substance OF the tacti
my recoht ctiou equally ndtinct as 10 L. response
and my address; have no doubt ot ether the reuS
ofproIerty be disposed of by the codc were taken
up and he was asked il they should be included; the
daft # cod'c bad pencil marks drawn over several
OF the iiCms originally written IN ~ the course OF the
preceding was to ask concerning the property to
lake The Iace OF those marked OUT tae business wcs
prccet ded in until the items were gone through
and adopted as gifts intended to be made 10y mni
ucst of lie questions put by ME, but think
some of them were put by Mrs. Parish, and possibly
scue by Mr. Drafiei. presume tina commenced,
but spebk with hesitation; canrot state what item
first ;erTed 10 IN thus addressing Mr fd1'hi can
oy state nf,reutlaly that from the cour-e e" bt>I-
uess tie items fist written in the draft would oe ms,
taken up | canuot RENE Der the form OF words IA
asking Inn about an item according 70 the substance
Of ny recollection the subject was; Sual that item
be Vut in ?" | have no recollection ot any difference
between those erased in the drait with ?, neu marks
ard those not erased, but as have Sald, have no
recolt Ct on on the tu'lec' | acted under the
COM lctiun that the Gralt had been read Ia hin;
! stated in that Interview to NJ. Parish as
| lad before to Ms. Parish, that gifts by
taking st. cks in Ler name were not valid gifts TO
her from tie fact that NJ. Parish could express his
accent or dissent ireghly, and that the lteLs were
l,t to sand; have no douttiu my mind OF HI. assent
ing by The word yes To each item inserted ln tue cod
Itl: he WAS equally able 10 express dissent
and am very positive tLat ne expressed uo dissent;
uyr,ot ecion from the inference ma e., but OF tue
fact have no doubt; | cannot say that have uo
recoi, cton IN that subject, nor yet can say what
that 7, &C lection j.; the lnterence- absorb the reco
lection the items in the second section con .ed o.
,ccurites in Mr Par.h name aud they were taken mp
=. a.pnIat.'v: the items would be named aud he would
h., h. # 3 nj atOui be, included:
recollection that Mr.. Parish and Mr.. Deafeld ai-
dressed q s0n, ia relation 20 some OF the items tnat
wee il uded in that second question It = my I'm.
pes,on sat the items eventually settled IN the secoad
section If that draft we're not identical WIN tn ist
han, I'd L. By Mr.. PARISH but am unable entirely
TO state the It,ms of dlherence no item vas put IN
v.tlout 4 di-'ilot Asseut by word hOm Nj. Parish,
given O,tcr on rent ceg-ets spaces OF tune, some
times more promptly AMI -0netlme- aiter IA re delays
.c Cd n every Instance give NC distiHt and I'm
answer; viii not say distinct hat an nhn.t tk 1bc
aver Of yes or no; rome IF the items
| tluk were lef, out, and | think all tle
items were either read to him or stated
to him; cannot teolltct any OF tue tens w1lch were
uc, erased Any Of the items which were subfii-
iUt but recOlec that there were OnlytwO or three
items IN at second clause that hsd not pencil line
drawn hTO1shthem my recollection II distinct that the
number 81 items unpencled was very small when he
did lot auswer yes, be- either ans wered no or SQUAD
c.prtssii b. station, distinctly markell from that Dy
witch BE- o1gress,d assent; think he used both on
Different occasions cannot describe 20 that II can Do
canrCt rCc0.tct any OF the items negatised, or at
which L. b, siaed. which were bstateIi 80 Tar
as my u emory s,ryes was rot az the time ot re-
lection Cr Le.iiatiou but after all the items were gone
tirougf that Mr. Parish iutoiucei the idea OF sub
siitu,ion 80 far my memory serves ne dd di--
tinoty assent and dissent TO the propO't ms but IN
what numbers proportion either way am entirely
unable TO say; my beet reco'lection - that the
assent or dlssclt was rot always lmncciate anu
tia, some remarks may have BEEN made on some
Of the items before the assent or dissent was
given: the inquiry If the item. should b. included
was partly what be called a di,cusrlOni l
hive an impression that when Mr.. Daniel Parish
puzzled by Mis Parish get to ar. Parish b. treated
L. rude " al she thou ght that she obliged 20
ask hin lrbve the bOu-e think she said person
usr "a ulsGne present, or was IN some way con
n..ted with n: Il mentioned i IN connection ~i.bthe
name Of Mr. FulsOme aad without whether I referred
10 two II stances only one, cantot say; DO not
reco,d that she ever mentioned any Other person IN
tbs CONNECTION; Ms. Parish did not speak VITA me
much IOT Oft. a about that difficulty do not ree0l-
let that rhe yer told reference u any member
of Mr. Daniel Par-h family, thai she hal had bun,
her or tht Il. tod, when they called 70 see Mr. Henry
Parb Ii AZ bee to- IL D. be seen have no recol-
,ou Of aLy particular * lusiOn vi Mr. Daniel fdrlsh
from b.. other or O any vi Ls family II was 90 the
s.h of Sept.mb,r that proposed the re'okng OF Nj
Dali, tari-h a. executor ~ Mr. Henry Parish; told
I'm, a'ulIDg 10 the yaiisDce between then, that II
d ess large amounts were gwen 10 Mr. Parish, hr.
Dan aTish would seem ~ stand IN iare pOsltlon
gave n0 GescIpiI0n OF The Naiiahce between mr.
Daniel Parish aud Mrs. Par.h alluded to II a. 10
fac ur os.d 10 De perfectly understood said nothing
more ttan that there 5 varance, unless II De
upu4sion n At he would attempt 70 delea the then
i1tefded disposition of his property had never
srekep ~ i previously; this occasion DID alude
To- he suplositon that be would dispute this property
that j. rather stronger han mean TO say; dii d.
lude the sUppo,Ho that be might probably dispute
TIE codicl | recCIrct 10 reply from hr' faIsh oy
ign or sound 10 reIly expected; the object ~
ufoas. N