Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-09-28
An Extraordinary will Case-A Curious
Medley Of Facts.

Causes CelebreS, is now the talk Of Bos'
ton. The evidence taken before the
examiners some months since, but only
just published, fills large volume of a
thousand pages The amount involved
exceeds a million of dollars. The argu'
ments in the case-before the United
States Circuit Court, Justice Clifford pre-
siding-commenced last Friday:
1t is suit in equity, brought by Hetty
H. Robinson against Thomas Mandell
and others. Miss Robinson (now Mrs
Green) was, previous to her marriage,
one OF the richest, if not the richest
spinstor in the United States her prop
ertytwhich she inherited from her father,
was commonly reputed to be worth
$5,000,000 1t appears that her aunt,
Miss Sylvia Ann Rowland, who died in
1865, left a will bearing date September,
1868, and codicil executed in 1864
By this will and codicil Miss Rowland
disposed of about 100000 in private
legacies, the largest, Of 100000, to
Thomas Mandell, her lawyer, we believe;
$ll5, 600 to her physician, Dr. Gordon,
and from $4,000 to $4,000 to each per-
son in her employment VShe left, also,
$4,000 for public and charitable pur-
poses, of which the city of New Bedford,
where she resided was to receive $500
600. The residue of her estate, amount
ing, 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 go to some
of the testator's relatives Miss Robin
son contests her aunts will, This is, in
itself, remarkable enough, seeing that
the young lady, already the possessor of
millions, is entitled, under II, to an
annuity that would add some $50, 900 or
$4,000 to her annual income. What
she contends for is the whole of her
aunts estate, in fee, supposed to be worth
about two millions.
The ground upon which she contests
the above will and codicil is noteworthy.
1t seems that Miss Rowland had quar-
relied with her brother.in'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
September, 1860, 10 her niece, then about
twenty.three years old, that if she Miss
Robinson) would make o will so that her
father should inherit no part of her
property, she miss Howland) would, in
return, make will leaving everything
to her niece; the will OF each to be de-
posted with the other, and neither to
make any other will without notice to
the other, and returning to that other her
will. Miss Robinson agreed to this, and
the wills were executed accordingly.
But the subsequent will and codicil made
by the aunt in 1868 and 1864 were exc
cuted without notice to the niece. Thus
arose a question of law, novel question
the courts of this country, namely,
whether contract for mutual wills, if
proved, cen be enforced as being without
consideration and against public policy
and good morals
But the most singular feature in this
case 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 sort of protest by the testator
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 will,
as nothing could induce me to make a
will unfavorable to my niece but being
i'll, and afraid, if any of my caretakers
insisted on my making will, to refuse,
as they might leave me or be angry, =
| | give this will to my niece to show, It
absolutely necessary to have 1t appear
against another will found after my
death. Miss Robinson testifies under
oath, that she wrote this appendage to
the will at the suggestion Of her aunt
and that her aunt signed it in duplicate
in her presence.
The defense to this is nothing less than
a charge of forgery. II is denied that
the signature of this additional page is
genuine, and alleged that it was copied
by tracing from signature admitted to
be genuine) of the testator to tbe original
will to which this appendage is found
stitched This opens up wide field, IN
which not only questions of law but OF
! science, but even of art, come up. On
the question of forgery both parties have
spent much time and labor. Two skull
! full photographers have been employed
for weeks; and experts have expended
months in procuring and comparing, In
great number of cases, numerous sig
natures by the same person, so as to
determine the chances that any one
person should write three signatures
exactly alike. The testimony is to the
effect that Miss Howland's signature to
the original and genuine will, and the
two signatures TO the appended paper,
executed in duplicate, are in every let
ter and line and in the spaces between
the three words, Sylvia Ann Howland,
so precisely concident, so identical in
fact that nothing but a deliberate pur-
pose TO make them so can explain the
phenomenon. Mr.. Crossman, for the
defense, testifes that he has spent nearly
five months in examining many hun
dreds of signatures of many well known
persons comparing the coincidence by
superimposing one on the other on
glass in front of window, and also BY
tracing and superimposlng the traclngs
He says there was a greater similarity
in Miss Howl,nd's signatures, forty or
fifty of which he compared with each
other, than in any other case; ; and be
considers the two signatures to the de-
tached sheets to be genuine. On the
other hand, Mr.. Southworth, after slmi
lar researches, declares that the three
signatures coincide with mathematical
accuracy, not only letter for letter, aud
space for space, but also that each has
the same slant to the base line OF each
paper, so that the eye secs them parallel
His testimony covers fifty pages, and
he pronounces the two contested sigma