Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-05-12
CITY AND COUNTY.

SUPREME JUDICIAL CoURT.-On Friday
the petition of VIM. S. Denny, creditor o.
Henry D, Stone was presented, praying for 9
mandamus, to compel the Judge of Probate
and Insolvency to order the old assgnees oil
Stone, Messrs Bickford and Willard, to pay
over the funds in their hands as dividends to
the creditors. Notice for hearing was order
ed, returnable June u, at Boston, but the
judge intimated that the case would not ba
heard till October, before the full bench, at
Worcester
A habeas corpus case was considered, in
which the petitioner, A. p. Reed of this city,
had a writ of habeas corpus issued, to take
possession of his child, George c. Reed, two
years and a half old, out of the hands of its
mother, Annie o. Reed, now living in Hollis
ton. Mr.. and Mrs. Reed have been married
three ar four years, but have not not lived to-
gether for some time, owing TO some domestic
difficulty meanwhile, the chdren-Geo. u
and two others, who are younger, nave
remained with their father. week or
ten DAVIS since, however, Mrs. Reed came 10
this CITY. and took away the oldest child Win
! her to HoTston. After hearing both parhes'
the Judge decided against the prayer OF the
netitioner. allowing Mrs. Reed to nave the
child and keep it without expense 10 Tue peu:
TONER. She makes no claim to the other chill
dren. Geo. f. Very for the petitioner, and
Foster & Baldwin for fhe respondent
An interesting will case, George W. Ella ct
ole executors. VS.. Thomas Edwards, was de-
cded. This was an appeal from the decree of
the Judge of Probate and Insolvency, disal-
lowing the will of Susan S. Edwards, wife of
Thomas Edwards, artist, of this city. Mrs.
Edwards. it will be recoIlected, was killed
about year since, at Westboro', while at.
temptngto cross the railroad in chaise She
was possessed of considerable amount of
the greater part of which, after
making provision for her husband and some
small legacies, she devised to four trustees, to
be appropriated to establishing a school of the
higher order, for young ladies. Soon after
marriage in April, 1855, she wrote the will in
question. 1t was all written by herself on sew
IN half sheets of paper, each consecutively
and was signed by her, and the
names of three persons were subscribed to the
paper nearly opposite to her own 1t appeared
BY the testimony of the two witnesses called,
InaC Jney were requeSteu " slSn lhe paper
by her; to one of them she said it was
her will. Neither of them saw her sign the
will or acknowledge her signature, and they
did not sign it in the presence of each other.
AS to whether all the sheets of paper were seen
by the witnesses CIR were in the room when
they were signed, was matter in dispute.
The third witness residing out of the state, it
was impossible to procure her attendance, and
proof was made of her handwriting There
was no attestation clause in the will.
The defendant, who is the husband of the
deceased contended that there was no proof
that she signed the will before the witnesses
did-that there was no sufficient evidence that
they all signed as witnesses at her request
nor that all the sheets on Which the will was
written were in the room when they subscribed
their names as witnesses. The appellants, who
were the executors and trustees, commended
there was sufficient evidence on these points
The court, after taking the case under advise
ment, remarked that the case presented some
difficult and nice questions, but, on the whole,
he should disallow the will, on the ground of
the insufficiency of the evidence on the two
last points, but would report the case for the
consideration of the full court.
Dewey & Williams for the executors, E.
MelIen and Boutelle Of Westboro' for Mr.. Ed.
wards.
p. The court adjourned sine die.