The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-09-13
A R,oh and Rare VIII Case.


money in dispute. Will there ever be
suit of that magnitude in Richmond We
can only hope for it through the Chesa-
peake and Ohio railroad
The case briefly stated is: In equity,
HETTY II. ROBINSON (now Mrs. GREEN
against THOMAS MASDELL aud others. Pre-
vious to her marriage Miss RoBlSsoN's pro-
perty, inherited from her father, amounted
to s5,o00,000. Her aunt, Miss SYLVIA
should have been "Silver") ANN How
LAND, who died in 1865, left will bearing
date September, 1868, and codicH ere-
cuted in 1864. This will gave to THOMAS
MASDELL, her lawyer, 100000; to her
physician, Dr.. GORDON, sll5,O0O; and
others, legacies, amounting in all to $780,
600; and to charitable purposes, 34O,o0O.
The residue Of her estate, amounting TO
about 81 900, 900, was to be placed in trust,
the income, amounting to 100000 or $4,000,
to be paid to Miss Robinson during her
lifetime. This lady now, with her five
millions, this large annuity, and her hus-
band to boot, sues for the entire pro-
perry Of her aunt.
It appears that Miss ROWLAND had quar-
relied with her brothcr-in-law, the father
of Miss ROBINSON, and being resolved TO
exclude him from any share in her pro-
perty az we'll as that Of her niece, MS
daughter, she proposed to the niece then
about twenty-three years old), about sep
tcmber. 1860, that if she, Miss R., would
make will so that her father would in
herit no part Of her property she miss
HowLASp) would make q 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 ROBINSON agreeing, the wills
were accordingly executed. But the aunt
makes, without notice to Miss R., her sub
seouent will and codicil of 1863 and 1864.
The suit arises in this wise To the first
page of tho will in favor of the niece there
is an addition attached with fine thread,
which, without altering the provisions of
the will, merely protests against the va
lidity of any subsequent will which, under
any undue influence from those around
her, she might make. In this occurs these
words:
81 implore the Judge to decide in favor
of this will. as nothing could induce me to
make will unfavorable to my niece; but
being i'll, and afraid, if any Of my care
takers insisted on my making will, to re-
fuse, as they might leave me or be angry,
give this will to my niece to show,
if absolutely necessary to have it appear
against another will found after my death"
Miss R. testified that she wrote this ap-
pcndage, and that her aunt signed it in
duplicate in her presence.
The defence alleges that the signature
to this addition to the will is forgery,
and that it was done by tracing the sigma
ture from that which was genuine and
signed to the will itself Photographers,
experts, and men of science, have been
called in, and mass Of testimony making
a volume of 1900 pages has been taken.
1t appears upon examination that the
three signatures are precisely alike-that
to the original will, which is admitted to
be genuine, and the two to the appendage,
alleged to be iorgeries-the two are iden.-
tical with the original in every letter and
line, and in the spaces between the three
words (SYLvIA ANN HowLAND) so pre-
ciscly coTncident that it is alleged by de-
fence that nothing but deliberate pur-
nose to make them SO can explain the
fact.
Mr., CRossMAS declared in his testimony
that he had spent five months examining
and comparing signatures, and that he
found a greater similarity in Miss How
LANDS signatures than in any other case !;
he considers the two signatures to the pro
test or appenaage genuine. Mr.. SOUTH
WORTH, on the other side, is convinced
that they are forgeries because they cor
respond with the genuine with such ma
thcmatical accuracy-letter for letter,
space for space, each having the same
slant to the base line of each paper-as
could only be attained by tracing by the
genuine, and could not have resulted &C.
cidentally.
The most remarkable testimony of all
was that of Professor BENJAMIN PIERCE, Of
harvard College, who has made the study
of the doctrine of chances specially. He
considered that ga numerical expression
applicable to this problem " (of identi-
cal resemblance of signatures) "could be
readily obtained" After examining nu-
merous signatures of Miss Rowland, and
having thus ascertained the relative fire.
qucncy of coincidence, he concludes that
in her case "this phenomenon (of coin
cidence) could occur only once in two
Thousand six hundred and siXty-siX mil
"lons of millions Of times (2,G66, 100000
5000, 900, 900, 000)." He says: "This
"number far transcends human expert
"ence. So vast an improbability is prac-
"tically an impossibility. Such evanesent
"shadows of impossibility cannot belong to
"actual life. They are unimaginably less
ethan the least things which the law cares
"not for"
Apparently the testimony is rather hard
upon Mrs. GREEN. Her case may be visi-
bic to her "through glass darkly," but
it is at best very dim. The doctrine of