The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-03-02
surrOgate's once.

Before Edward c. West, Surrogate.
WM Of Charlotte Fucy-This will admitted 10 pro-
bate yesterday. OF the estate disposed Of by It, which
Is considerable In amount 81 900 is given the Ass,oa
ton for the Relief Of INDECENT Aged and Respectable Fe
males in the city Of New York. and 81 900 TO the New
York Bible Society formed in 1923.
WIN Of Peer Waterven Tho win of Peter westervelt,
Of Hackensack N. has likewise been admitted pro-
bate After bequeatRng the bulk OF his estate to his re-
ves the testat,r gives VI 900 Ia three equal shares TO
the American Bible Society the Board Of Domestic Mis-
and also sny money which may ever be collected on
bond which the deceased held against L. Van Norden for
81 $780, ordered to be given To the three societies,
IN as many equal shas es
WILL OF MRS. BLANKMAN.
J. ~ Lewis tho cashier OF the Union Bank, was the
st witness examined for the contestants Of this VIII
yesterday He testified that he received checks from
Mr. Malard the deceased attesting Witness that no
was unacquainted with his handwriting.
Lawrence l. Bennett. the next witness brought
the stand He testified that he jeweler that he
knew the estatrx for fifteen years. that he hal
write several times and received checks from
signed j. Augusta Bennett but could not say that he had
received any signed Joue A. Blankman; and that no
thought he knew her handwriting and should say the
signature to the will offered for probate was not her
James B. Burgess, broker, was the next witness He
testified that he had received checks from A. T. Mail
lard and thought he should know his signature
in his opinion tho signature tho will offered for pro-
bate dissnisr the signatures which he had seen
Robert G. Hurlbut salesman in Smith Il Sons estab-
but that he had his checks drafts and that was o
| some extent" acquainted with his handwrtng and
should not think that the A. 7 Maiard in tho win
Isaac b. Hussey, a broker, testified to knowing Mail
lard seventeen years; that he had him write, and
had his signature he should think the signature
| will not In his handwriting
Edwin Bennett was the next witness called He tosti.
ned that he was jewellers that he knew haard for
/ yeare
The remainder Of the evidence of this witness was post
| poned tin the case comes Oh again.
L +. He q one Of IN dry IA
aim Of Tracy, Irwin Co., and testified that he knew
Mai,lard who was several years employed in his estab.
shment that he frequently saw him wrte and tlat in
his opinion the signature TO the will not in his hand
| writing.
| mination. The case was adjourned till 70 day.
| THE CELEBRATED cLEU WILL CASE.
The appeal Of Laura f. Taylor and others from the do
of the Surrogate admitting the last viii and tesla
| ment of Elizabeth Cleu to probate called up. -
Surrogate Bradford, exJudgs Dean and John A. Bryan
appeared for the respondents, and Messrs. Stoughton
Hutchins and Marsh for the appellants II will be reso
her husband, John Ceu 70 whom she was married IL
1851, surviving her. she left Albert Day aud
Laura +. Taylor and M. Josephine Devn her sole
/ heirs at law. There were no children. From tho
printed report of the case appears that the nsra
ment ia question which left all her property, nearly hall
million, TO her husband, was proponded By the respon
dent, her husband the last will and testament Of the
9th day Of December, 1861 1t was delivered to the
Surrogate after her DEATH by John Purroy who had
long the attorney legal adviser OF the resp
ent. The probate Of this instrument by tho appel
ants contested upon tho ground that II had been
voked by her subsequent Of two several Wills
one executed about the LIST day Of September, 1885,
pressy revolving all former Wills and the other executed
10th day Of December 1885, containing an
clause Of revocation and making and bequosts
utterly Inconsistent with the Of the instrument
propoundcd as thereby 70 revoke the At about
the time the of WAS executed and when 1t was
| drawn, Mr. Purroy, who prepared the same drew
another almost identical with IL Ia language which was
executed by the respondent favor Of Mrs Ceu And
he also erred In finding matter of fact that
the TInll wiz contained similar clause OF revocation
and aeo deyisee and requests 30 with those
contained in the propounded as In Judgment
of law revoke the same and should tho Court agree
with the appellants either these views decree Of
the Surrogate must be reversed The respondent
that the viii having been duly proved where a re-
| vocation vs. TO DO established by q subsequent wiu
| the proof must be equivalent In force and clear
/ ness to that degree which Is requisite 70 es-
tebiish will Mere probability was not enough
The Court will not ovortnrn solemn instrument upon
Eurmke suspicion or conjecture There must be proof
The ons prctdndt Is on the contestants Tho law will
executed In 1858 was found under the following crcum-
ha ~ co,d ~. s sne & ana wnen @