The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-25
Surrogatc's Court.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL HART,
DECEAsED-PARoL EVIDENCE.

DECgAsED-PARoL EVIDENCE.
Decision Of the Surrogate, A, W. Bradford.
The tesator provided BY the rcsiduary clause OF his
viii - otlows"A the rest, residue and remainder Of
my estate well real pcsoua the proceeds there
Of give, devhe and bequea,h, unto my sisters, Ella,
rpporah, Hctty, Rebecca and Rachel, equally, share
and share alike forever" Hcay Marks one Of the sis
ters died before The tetaior aud asked to deter.
MIG whether her ehare iapsed passed her personal
REPRESENTATIVES; and III lspeed, whether onured 70
cAusc 10 be dist ibued among the sestaors next Of
KIN 1 portion Of his estno not disposed OF
Resdnary sgaces take all tho residue Of tho estate
naming after the other sacics, general and speciGs
By reason OF the lcgstee before the tsstsior or
for any other cause the amount falls into the general
residue. But II the residusry beqpest any portion OF
II tails then to The extent OF failure there no valid
a,,am.ntsry provision and consequently 70 that extent
the resduary hgsiees by the terms Of tho will,
tenants In commor-that 10 ray the legacy not OF
OF the i've teveray his beng created by
words equally share and share afkeD II follows,
brother The peqSess Of one arm OF the residue n her
favor apsd, and there beng provision substituting
her next Of kin IN her place IN case CT DEATH the h
iribussd among the OF kin az portion OF
hs esis found the circumstances not TO bc Va.
Idly ttqueathed By bis will.
Tho te.taor gave annuity 10 Paris peccard described
n the will hts cousinn Paro proof has been offered
The deceased had TO cousin named Pars Peccard but
that bis cousin named Princela peccard was usually
named BY BIN as his eousn described in the will. I
think this evidence competent Psrol proof may always
be used 10 apply w-that IT, 70 ascertain the peyson
intended BY the teststor by certain description which,
though rot ambiguous It's lace cannot be applied pre-
cisey expressed in the instrument Strictly speak
ing the tcsa;or had cousin named Paris, and then
tho legacy mutt sil unlcss seek by extrinsic evl.
eenco 20 asccrsin whom he intended by the
We oanrot indeed, alter the plain terms OF q written in
srumcnt by showsrg the tetasors declarations Ia con-
TRADITION OF the wil In addition 10 H. The writing
must prevail and must be interpreted By its own lam
tusge But entirely competent point out By proof
the who the description Of lesatee a.
contained In the Will. There can be no doubt on
that point But there be person who
exactly The description, then We are compelled
10 inquire, BY means OF eXtyinsic evidence, whom the
teaistor Intended The Court at oil times may demand
10 be put In the place OF the testaor In order 10 under
stand mis- will its references susons and descriptions.
II Is only by knowing the history OF the parties aud
looking Al the surrounding facts that at times
clearly what the testaor intended. r. In describing
any ersop In his viii he has used name which no
accustomed 10 apply 10 that party proof the fact
the description contained In the will may be applied with
entire certainty. II the will be written In q foreign Ian.
tusfe. be translated M 1t contain terms which IN
wri ordinarily used In peculiar scssc. that can be
shown, and descriptions are made BY names which be
in the habit OF applying to the parties his SAVING
be gathered just cell from the Of these ma mes
- be had employed the applications By which they
were commonly known. I have no doubt tina, this 10
legitimate mode OF Interpreting will by the aid Of sx.
frntc evidence, IN exposition OF the habits and phrase
lory OF The esator, aud must therefore be decided
bat the annuity be raid 10 the claimant