The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-10
The Howland will Case.

The Boston Advertiser of last Saturday con-
tans several columns oftestimony taken in this
most singular case. There are three points at
ssue:- Whether the alleged contract between
Miss Howlan and her niece, that the former
would not make another will without informing
the latter, ha any existence in fact; whether
such contract, II ting, has any binding force
in law; and whether the signatures to the duph-
cate declaration, attached to Miss HoWlands
will in favor OF her niece, are genuine. This
declaration is as tolloWs:-
81 give this will to my niece to show fthere appears
evil made without notifying her, through Thomas 9
Judge to decide in tavSr of this will nothing could
but being III and afraid IL any of takers in
sisted on my making Will TO refuse as they might light
will to show-my niece fearing also after she went
they might say q her, as they Tried to make trouble
Sy ga nSs 3e @ sR viii II To e INV c sho@
absolutely necessary TO- have j. to appear against
show this will, made when am in good health, for
March, in the Year Of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and fifty TO- show also as proof that IL has
therefore give my property 70 my niece as freely as
any Sd M nu@ 10 of m TO 1--WE Il 10 ber All
excepting about one hundred THOUSAND dollars In pre-
sen3s mt, to 1 my iePds and atd relations
IL "'''isSs "sYLVIA ANN ROWLAND, and a seal"
The niece testides that she lived with Mrs.
Rowland as a child with mother; describes
the writing of the wills with minute attention
! to circumstances; asserts that her aunt was
! anxious that no more of the Rowland property
| should get into the hands of her (the witnessO
| father and proposed the exchange of wills; says
she wrote the above declaration at her aunt's
suggestion and under her aunts dictation, and
that her aunt signed both copies of it in her
presence; and swears positively that the con.
tract was made at her aunts suggestion, and
that che had not received any notice from her
aunt that another will had been made.
| The defense introduced several servants and
others, who swore that the relations between
| Miss Robinson and Miss Howand were quite
| different from those between child and mother;
| that Miss Robinson worried Miss Howland about
making a will; that 1t was Miss Robinson who
did not want the property to get into her fathers
hands; that they had never heard eitbeSSn tNi66T
| between them; and that when Miss Robinson
came 10 Miss Howland's residence, alter the date
| OF the alleged exchange of wills, she asked
whether her aunt had made another will.
The judge who admitted the contested will to
probate testihes that before the will came before
| him Miss Robinson wrote to him, asked him to
call on her, called herself on him, virtually
offered him bribe, and gave money to his child,
| which he sent back to her by mail.
The question of the genuineness of the sigma
lures 10 the declaration given above is very
puzzling one. The defense claim that they were
| traced from the undoubted signature to the
will, and that they are too exactly like that sig
nature to be genuine. This is the sworn opinion
Of several experts. Some Of them testify to
having discovered signs that the doubtful sig
natures were first written with lead pencil and
afterwards with pen and ink. Professor Agassiz
swears that he is unable to detect such signs
with a microscope; other experts testify that
same person written at different times are not
impossible or novel, and that it is precisely in
such a cramped handwriting as Miss Howlaud'a
that they are to be looked for. Professor
Pierce was called in as authority upon the doc
trlne OF chances. He said:-
I'm the of Sylvia Ann Rowland, the phe
nomenon-the exact condolences OF signatures
could only occur once in the number OF times ex
pressed by the thirtieth power of five or more
and sixty six millions of millions of millions o
times or 2666 COO 900 900 0O0 This number IA
transcends human experience. so vast an lmpro
liability is practically an lmpossibility such eVanes
cent shadows OF probability cannot belong 10 aclua
| life. They unimaginaby less than the lees
things which the law cares not for. The colncluenc
which is presented to in the case cannot therelor
be regarded as having occurred In tne o%r1naL; % (
course of signing name. Under solemn sense .
the responsbiy involved In the assertion declar
| that the coincidence which has here occurred mus
have had It's origin In an Intention TO produce IT,"
This view is streng thened by the fact that tn
| signatures TO the will and to the declaration
! | were not written on ruled lines, which make
! | an exact coincidence still more improbable.
A minor but important question related t
/ | the comparative excellence of the Globe an
? | Voigtlander lenses. The principal expert o.
one side used one, the principal expert on tn
| other side used the other.
With regard to the third point at ISSUE tn
8 binding torce of the alleged contract, we mus
2 await the decision of the court. The argument
e commenced last Friday.