The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-17
SUPREME C0URT-CHAMBERs.
The Jumcl Estatc Case-Is There Forgery OIL
Perjurys
Before Judge Cardozo.

Before Judge Cardozo.
Champaign Bo,ren ps Nelson Chase ana Others
year or two ago Nelson Chase, representing in
himself (mainly by purchase) the descendants OF an
alleged sister on Nine. Jumel, contested her viii
the ground OF undue influence; and that win was
set aside, and Mr.. Chase as representing the legal
heirs OF Aaron Burrs widow, took and is now in pos
session Of Nine. Jumel's estate. That case had
hardly been concluded when the plaintiffs In this
suit commenced four actions in ejectment for the
real estate Of Mme Jumel, alleging, in substance,
that Mrs. jones' descendants, in whose name Mr..
Chase claims title were not heirs OF Nine. Jumel but
that the plaintiffs were the true heirs. The testi-
mOny Of all the old men and women still
living in that part OF Rhode Island from which Polly
Bowen (Mme. Jumel originally came was eagerly
sought 3a.e confess arose rose inc plaintiffs
taken CtUd u0ce or on written interogatores in
which the plaintiffs trumphed, except as to the
evidence OF the parties themselves and the evidence
Of these old witnesses taken on written interro-
gasOrles. sort OF agreement or understanding was
entered into between the attorneys for plaintiffs and
defendants that these commissions and the exhibits
produced by each side should be retained by the ut
torneys anu not MED with the County CLERK. Cham.
examined rird uocs IN MIR. o'Conors Office. After
the greater part Of his examination was taken Mr.
Bowen and the counsel went 10 Judge Sutherlands
house. There Mr. O'Conor produced letter pur-
porting TO be written by Champain Bowen to Martin
a Smith, the counsel for the defendants in the
drss action, and inquired whether the letter was
his. Mr.. Bowen denied that he had ever writ
u IL, "
animation Mr.. O'Conor procured the original letter
and envelope, and copy to be marked by the Judge.
The originals were returned TO Mr.. Carter attorney
for the deiendants the copy was attached to the de
position. MI. Carter sent subsequently request
Tor the nling OF the deposition. Messrs. Cambreeng
Pyne, plainIiffs' attorneys after some days con-
sumed Ia making q copy, He'd 1t, but meanwhile
sent copyist with manifold paper to make fac
simlle Of the original. Mr.. Carter, though willing
TO have q copy made, refused to allow fac-simile to
be made.
The case now came up on a motion to compel Mr..
arts tn n priu
the plaintiffs to take photographic facsimile
Mr.. Tracy, for the plaintiffs stated the facts and
substance or the aiIldavit OF Mr. Pyne, which went
little further to the understanding, and stated
that tho letter left with Mr. Carter only on such
expressed arrangement In his opening he argued
that on the facts they clearly entitled 10 have
the letter fled as part OF the deposition.
Mr.. Carter In answering said tina. ne was COM
PEELED In some to go into the merits OF this
case Mr.. Eowen claimed here as AL her through
James Bowen to Nine Jumel. While the Old case
was proceeding Champlain Bowen had done nothing,
but had gone 10 the Rev. Mr. Duane aud nad stated
to him hls claim. Mr.. Duane had advised him to
consult Martin Smith As they understood let,
ter had bcen then written by the PLAINTIFF to Martin
Il Smith. In which he aycrred that Nine. Jumel
was not the daughter out an iliegitmate grand
daughter Of James Bowen. IL would be something
OF miracle II tins letter was forgery but IL was
denied utterly before Judge sutherland, and was
therefore not evidence and was not al exhibit in
| the case Mr.. Pyne had made some mistakes In his
statement OF what had occurred on the taking OF
that deposition But after ali the real questions cid
not turn on those facts He could not see for what
purpose this demand was made unless IL were to IA
troducc evidence TO contradict 1t Now, 80 lar
mony 10 make 1t evidence. There was difference
between other dispositions In which exhibits had
been produced and this, and this difference was that
In the others exhibits OF value to the parties had
been produced while in this deposition there were
no such exhibits STILL ne nad exhibited no harsh
meas. lie had made request that it should DO ned.
but he had allowed all necessary time for the making
Of copies lie would not have objected 70 pairing
Judge he thought the deposition should be nled.
The question before the Court now was whether THIS
was not necessary the completeness Of tho dcpo
sition. IL was no part OF the plannfs case. it
ss bs pian. PAD Sad Sny bower To- ott,1n
this letter II Was by BIZ OF discovery. Mr. Pyne had
sent 70 them for copy. They had never refused
copy, but when young man from Their Office had
had thought that somewhat beyond ordinary cour-
tesy and had stopped 1t. What could the plaintiffs
want facsimile forf lie thought their only posi-
BILE object was one which would not De approved by
inc Uoo n Commission or r. saat ms e1er
was not the handwriting OF the plaintiff. rns was
kiLki'of fishing IN their Casa means OF nquirino
beforehand into their testimony not favored by the
n the plaintifYs asked this, not as right but as
favor there were other considerations. fThc other
side, not being residents Of this state, sought
10 Gust persons now In possession OF properly
here. They had applied 70 inc Court to
PENDANTS had been willing togive them every facility,
provided they were allowed tho privilege Of oral
crosseS animation. The Court hadaleRed them that
privilege, aud on appeal the Court had hnid the
order not appcaiabe Thcy had done their bes. with
written OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES; but under those com.
missions all kinds OF testimony had been taken OF
aged witnesses; OF what they had heard froa their
fathers and mothers their grandfathers ana granu-
mothers. Counsel fnstanccd one case OF IN OH man
OF nncty.nne, all Of whose testimony, ne avcrred,
would have been demolished in fifteen minutes oral
Examination. Now n the other side ash Ed thus
facility OF looking into their evidence they must at
least extend the facility Of oral crossexaminatio1
Tracy, IN reply said that Mr.. Carter was con,
ttnually In this srlt compelling hun 70 go aside
rom the Immediate question In nand TO the general
merits OF the action. Nine. Jumel had died ieay-
ing win by which the great bulk OF her estate was
left away from her relatives and friends TO charita-
bic uses with some egacies TO certain OF her II lends
| hr. Chase had attacked that Will. srne. Jumels
relations were pa paJc, clear persons. but they were
quite content To let ner viii stand without charging
on her feeblcness Of mind and without attacking
her character. Mr.. Chase, however, being ON hand
had a. once taken possesson OF the property a. q
ssquatter,n and pushed with mos. extraordinary
rapjdity q suit 70 annul the will. lie, counsel had
| appeared In that sut though not in prom inent
way, on behalf OF two charitable institutions,
and knew its conduct. When the case came to trial
they found themselves too weak aud n compromise
was made. In thai suit the present claimants had