New-York tribune., 1867-09-11
Av txrEAoRpMlRr VIZ cAsE.

fefebT6S, IA
dence, taken before examiners some months
since, but only just published, fills large vol
ume of thousand pages. The amount IN
volved exceeds million of dollars. The argu-
ments in the case-beforc the United States
Circuit Court, Justice Clifford presiding-cOm-
menced last Friday. 1t is q suit in equity,
brought Ivy Hetty Ii. Robinson against Thomas
Mandell and others. MISS Robinson (now Mrs
Green) was, previous TO her marriage, one OF
the richest, if not the richest spinster in the
United States; her property, which she IN
herted from her father. was commonly re-
puted to be worth Sj0O0,00O 1t appears that
her aunt Miss Sylvia Ann Rowland, who
died in 1866, left will bearing date September,
| 1868, and COdiCl executed In 1854 by TINS
will and codcil Miss Rowland disposed of about
100000 in private legacies the largest, OF 5000
! 600, to Thomas Mandell, her lawyer, we believe;
| S115,OOO to her physician, DR.. Gordon, and from
| $4,000 to $4,000 to each person i'll her employ
ment She left also, S34O00O for public and
| charitable purposes, of which the City Of New
Bedford where she resided was to receive
| $32O,OOO. The residue of her estate, amounting,
it is said, to about million, was to be placed
in trust, the income to be paid to Miss Robinson
during her life; the principal on her decease,
| to 90 to some OF the testators relatives. Miss
| Robinson contests her amts Will This Is, III
! itself remarkable enough, seeing that the
! young lady, already the possessor OF millions,
is entitled under it, TO IN annuity that would
add some 100000 or $4,000 to her annual in
come. What she contends for is the whole of
! her aunt's estate. in fee, supposed To be wolth
about two millions.
The ground EupOn which she contests the
above will and codicl is noteworthy. Ii seems
that Miss Rowland had quareled with her
brother-n law, the father of Miss Robinson, and
being resolved if possible. to exclude him from
all share not only of her own property, but OF
his daughters also, she proposed about Sep
tember, 1860, to her niece then about twenty
three years old, that if she Miss Robinson)
would make % will so that her father should
inherit no part of her property she (Aliss How
land) would, in return, make n will leaving
everything TO her niece: the will of each to be
deposited with the other, and neither to make
any other will without notice to the other and
returning to that other her will. Miss Robin
son ag1ced to this, and the wills were executed
accordingly. But the subsequent viii and codi-
ell made by the aunt in 1863 and 1861 were
executed without notice to the niece. Thls
arose a question of law, n novel question IN
the courts of this country, namely, whether
contract for mutual wills, if proved, can be
enforced as being without consideration and
| against public policy and good morals.
| But the most singular feature in this ease still
remains to be stated. TO the will originally
made by Miss Rowland in favor of her niece
there is an addition, sewed on with fine thread
| to the first page, not changing any provision
of the will but a sort of protest by the testa-
, tor against the validity of any subsequent
will which she, under undue influence from
those around her. might be induced to make.
Part of the text is: II implore the Judge to
decide in favor of this viii. rs nothing could
"induCc me to make Il will umfavorabc 10 my
"necc; but being i'll, and afraid, if any of my
caretakers insisted on my making a WILL to
"refuSe. as they might leave mc OF be angry,
"' j give this will to my niece to show, if
absolutely necessary to have it appear against
"anothcr will found after my DEATH Miss
Robinson tcstiiies, under oath, that she wrote
this appcndagc to the will at the sugges-
ton of her aunt, and that her aunt
signed it in duplicate in her presence.
The defense to this is nothing less than
signature to this additional page is genuine,
and alleged that it was copied by tracing
from a signature admitted to be genuine)
of the testator to the original will to which
this appendage is found stitched This opens
up wide field, in which not only ques-
tions of law but of science, and even of art,
come up. On the question of forgery both
parties have spent much time and labor Two
4. l.. L
weeks and experts have expended months in
procuring and comparing, in a great number OF
cases, numerous signatures by the same per-
son, so as to determine the chances that any
one person should write three signatures ex-
actly alike. The testimony is to the effect that
Miss Howland's signature to the original and
genuine will, and the two signatures to.the ap-
pended paper, executed in duplicate, are in .
every letter and line and in the spaces between
the three words, Sylvia Ann Rowland so pre-
ciselyi cOincident, so identical in fact
that nothing but deliberate purpose
| to make them SO can explain the phe-
nomenon Mr. Crossman, for the defense,
testifies that he has spent nearly five months
in examining many hundreds of signatures of
many well known persons; comparing the CO.
incidence by superimposing one on the other
on glass in front of q window and also by
tracing and superimposing the tracngs. He
says there was greater similarity in Miss How
lands signatures, forty or fifty of which he
compared with each other, than in any other
case; and he considers the two signatures to
the detached sheets to be genuine. On the
other hand Mr.. SOuthworth, after similar re-
search, declares that the three signatures coin
oil natl fhama OF n1,,
letter for letter and space for space, but also
nnk Lnc Ia oIn IA L. -. -