New-York tribune., 1871-11-17
CLOSE OF THE wURTz WILL CASE.

The testimony in the Martha =. WurtZ will
case concluded before Surrogate HuchnRs yester-
day Henry g. Sanford testified that he saw Mrs Wurz in
Europe 1885, and that she told him on several occasions
that she would not return TO the United states John A.
e. Gray testified that he Mrs. Wurtz In Moe in 1885,
and hired her house In FHthays and that she assgued
~ for renting It that she did not intend to return
PORTIONS OF the French Civil Code, and moved 70 strike
out the testimony Of Mr. WurtE the brother OF the CHIEF
beneficiary OF the WILL the ground that he could not
he witness under this law, which provides that neither
81 ne nor Dy even To- the fourth
Inclusive, shall be capable Of acnng us witnesses M OF
Code as irrelevant on the ground that Nice
generally considered Italian city and under Italian
the general dd pTe e refa1s 81 s exSs laws
Gntil Tdf changed by Subsequent Legislation Mr.
SssT SSS ae a. sa Se rdnc tHs Mr. Ewa seS that he
Mrs. wurtE several times in Europe and that she
occasion she said she had been urged TO rent her
house in New-YOrk but did not wish To do ~ until she
could return and arrange the furniture.
Mr.. Coudert summed up for the proponents, claiming
bad utterly abandoned all idea Of returning tot United
States Nice her residence in law and In fact and
therefore the will could not be admitted 10 ProOae mere
Mr. Nash for tue proponents sad that although Mrs
returning to the United States yet she stated In her T
that she did not wish to throw of her allegiance 10 TINS
country but considered az her home; and az
the viii was executed according the laws OF the United
States, the disposition which she made OF her property
ought to be permitted to take effect Derr"h reserved
THE COMPLICATIONS OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
SEE LANDS IN SUIT
An important suit has been i'll progress be-
fore Judge Van Brunt during the Last three days eu
t,led Julius Cerding ag WIn A. Kobbe, and brought to
recover damages for nondevery Of stock in company
amounting TO 2s shares of the nominal par value of tO
each 1t was claimed by the plaintiff that the stock had
been demanded on his behalf on Jsn 1858; ana & the
with interest from that date Tie evidence shows tha
CHARLES Qrd9g had formerly been resident 1tSd o5 Eff E
large section Of land In what Is called the
Plateau, in Morgan and CumDerlala SOEhues "hGH % o
with the defendant. In whose employ ne was
purchased for speculation lands snto and % CerSg To-
sIompe 4s tiles A koSeS Es f 9ayS W ad S SS
interest in lands in East Tennsssee generally known Us
inc sistare lands Gerdng under the agreement puT
"a cents an acre except acres for which he paid S
He also purchased Of his uncle, g. f. Geralng O0oo %
Seres The original agreement WAS ABOUT Jhls utne
changed land company being formed TO dispose o1 tno
lands purchased. The agreement with o. r. GeTuhe T .
stated that he take his pay in the stock OF the
company, each share Of stock to represe1t not ess S
him at halt price In June the parties to this action
made agreement providing that tne od aglSeS6 Ss
SeeinR TO transfer to Charles Gerdng shares OF the
semDa1y 20 the nominal of 5000 each share to
%ss Il the same as that Of which George Geng
10 receive stock but NO reason was assigned IOr e
never issued amy stock There was no PROOF IN
ths case as TO what would have been the marcy VSHo
Of tke stock Of that company lmmedlatey altef ing
execution Of that agreement Charles Gerd1g assigned
his interest IN shares OF the STOCK ~ A. n hHce
In 10 shares to the defendant and 30 shares TO george
F. Gerdtng: and wallace Ia, as"ghSpH tpst ~T nndsT
the Agreement the defendant not having delivered thAt
ocF was liable for amount Of II on the ground Lnat
~ SOresment was 20 pay certain O money; as
HSudsted interest Of the plaintiff in the parnersnp
araement an the stock of the company ana tnat Ine
stcE NOT having been delivered the pecunary amount
named on nominal par was the measure q daSg am S
The Cour did not charge this but submitted 10 the
70 defpmine the value Of the lands, deciding that the
sIne of the stock was such as II might nnd tne
value of the Qntity OF the land repreSee" W '''1
share 70 be. The jury is still out