Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-09-12
THE ROWLAND WILL CASE.

tdins eeVeral columns OF testimony taken In
At Issue w nether the alleged contract be j..
tween Miss Howland and her niece, that the
former would not make another will without
informing the latter, has any existence in fact;
whether such contract, if existing, has any
blnding force in Law and whether the g. gua-
lures 10 the duplicate declaration attached to
Miss Howland's Will in favor OF her niece are
genuine. This de claration is as follows:
~ give this will to my niece to show il there
appears will made without notifying her,
through Thomas Mandell, as / have promised
10 do. implore the Judge to decide In favor
OF this will, as nothing could induce me to
make q Will unfavorabIe to my niece, but be-
ing i'll and afraid, II any OF my care takers In.
sisted on my making will, to refuse, as they
leave Or be angry, ana knowing my niece had
this will to snow-my niece tearing also after
she went away, hearing but one side, might
feel hurt 1t what they might say Of her, as they
tried to make trouble by not telling the truth
to me, when she was even here herself. give
this will to my niece to show, if absolutely
necessary to haveit to appear against another
will found after my death. wish her to show
me and my old torn will. made on the fourth
OF March, N the year of our Lord one thous.
and eight hundred and fifty, to show also as
proof that it has been my lite time wish for her
properly to my niece as freely as my father
gave it to me. l have promised him once and
my sister Number OF times to give 1t to her,
all excepting about one hundred thousand
s.
..ln witness whereof, etc -s.-,
stSYLvIA ANN Rowland, and q SEAL"
The niece testifies that she lived with Mrs.
Rowland as q child with mother: describes
to circumstances; asserts that her aunt was
anxious that 10 more Of the Rowland property
should get into the hands of her (the witness')
father. and proposed the exchange Of wills:
says she wrote the ABOVE declaration at her
aunts suggestion and under her aunt's dicsa-
ton, and that her aunt signed both copies Of
it in her presence; and swears positively that
the contract was made at her aunt's sug.
gestion. and that che had not received any
notce from her aunt that another Will had
been made.
The defense introduced Sc veral servants and
others. who swore that the relations between
Miss Robinson and Miss Rowland were quite
different from those between q child and
mother; that Miss Robinson worried Miss How
land about making will; tina. 1t was Miss
Robinson who did not want the property to
get in to her fathers hands; that they had never
heard either Miss Howland or her niece speak
of any contract between them; and that when
dence, after the date Of the alleged exchange sf
Wills, she asked whether her aunt had made
another will.
The Judge who admitted the contested will
to probate tesifes that before the will came
before him Miss Robinson wrote to him; asked
him to call on her; called herself on him: vir.
tually offerea him bribe, and gave money to
his child, which he sent back to her by mail
The question of the genuineness of the sig
natures to the declaration given above is a
very puZZling one. The defense claim that
they were traced from the undsubted sigma
ture to the will, and that they are too exactly
like that signature TO be genuine. This is the
sworn opiB ion Of several experts. Some of
them testify to having discovered signs that
the doubtful signatures were first written with
ie ad pencil and afterwards with pen and ink.
Profes sor AgassiZ wears that he is unable to
detect such signs with a microscope; other ex-
pe1ts testify tb at such close resem blances be-
cfnr nfy1rn O<t 81
at different times, are not imposst tble or novel,
and that 1t Is precisely in such cramped
handwriting as Miss Howlands that they are
TO be looked for. Professor Pierce was called
in as authority upon the doctrine OF chances
He said:
In the case OF Sylvia Ann Ho owland, the pne-
nomenOE-tbe exact condolences OF signatures
could only occur once in the number OF times
expressed by the :hirtieth power of five or
more-exactlV, it is once IN two thousand six
hundred and sixty r-sIx millions of millions OF
times, or 2,666,C00 GEO GO0, Coz, ,GO0GGg This
number far transcends human experiences. So
vast an imprebability is practically an impos-
sibility. Such evanesesnt shadows OF proba.
bility cannot belong to actual life. They are
unimaginably less than the least things which
the law cares not tor. The coincidence which
is presented to us in the case cannot therefore
be regarded as having occurred in the ordi.
nary course OF signing name. Under SOL
emn sense Of the responsibility involved in the
assertion, declare that tha coincidence which
has here occurred must hsve had its origin in
an intention 10 produce it,
This view is strengthened by the fact tina
the signatures to the will and to the declara-
tons were not written on ruled lines, which
ma kes an exact coincidence still more improb.
able. ?,
A minor but important question related to
the comparative excellence OF the Globe and
NoiRtlander lenses. The principal expert on
one side used one, the principal expert on the
other side used the other.
With eeard to the third point at Issue, the
binding force Of the alleged contract, we must
await the decision OF the court The argu-
ments commenced last Friday.