New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-09-12
TIE COURTS.
MuJIoNAIREs WILL CONTESTED.

A MIILIONAIRE'S WILL CONTESTED.
NOVEL. POINTS AT ISSUE IN CONNECTICUT COURT.
George ID. Phelps, who was for many years
a resident of this city, died at Symsbury Conn., where
he had Summer residence He left an estate vaiued ~
81 100000 the greaterHportion of which was personal
property. His family consisted Of q wife by second
marriage and two children by first, George d. Pheps
jr., and daughter, Mrs. Mary A. Robbins, wife OF
Horace W. Robbins, the landscape artist. BY
the win, the widow and son were constr
tuted the executrix and executor of the estate.
On the VIII being offered for probate in Connecticut IL
found TO have been drawn 80 careessy as 10 raise
serious differences Of opinion between the principal
legtees the intentions OF tho tesator in reference
10 the distribution OF the estate and proceedings were
instituted in the Superior Court Of Hartford County to
obtain judicial construction OF the WILL On the hearing
before Judge Carpenter the sent to the Supreme
Court of Errors before which body the various counsel
were heard on Wednesday and yesterday.
The will executed in 1862 after which four codi-
ellis execnted-one in 1866 second in 1869, third
in 1870 and fourth in 1871. In addition to these iye
instruments, properly attested, three papers were
found with the esators private accounts giving FUR
Their directions TO his executors IN reference to the dis
trbution of his property. These offered as con-
sutng portion Of the WILL the tesator having stated
in his will that he should leave such additional directions
The obscurity reference to the meaning OF the will
grew out of the arrangement OF the clauses and the
manner in which the words "residue" and portion"
employed. the and daughter claiming that
specific requests $4,000 TO each Of them and $4,000 to
the widow with minor gifts to the other benefciaries
first TO taken from the body Of the estate, and
that the residue be divided into three equal
parts, onethrd going to the widow life estate, one
third to the In fee and Onethird TO the daughter
as a life estate, with the remainder at her
death to her children, TO be distributed among
them at her discretion by will. The widow claims that
after the distribution OF certain furniture mementoes
and pictures specifically bequeathed the residue
means the remainder Of the estate and that under tho
viii such residue shall be divided into thirds and dis
trbuted among the legatees, and that the son and
daughter to receive the specific requests to them
from their dstributive shares respectively. Another
question at issue is whether the under the Will.
takes estate in fee only life estate without the
power Of disposition by will among his children as given
TO the daughter
But perhaps tho most novel point raised is the ques
ton OF the admission OF the unattested papers as ex
planatOry OF the provisions OF the WILL On this point
there scarcely any pecedents In the records OF this
country. The decisions IN England have held that 10
admit such paper connection with will 1t must be
referred paper existence and must be in actual
existence the date OF the execution OF the WILL which
In this case is claimed. But the counsel for the
widow claim that the republication OF the will by the
execution OF subsequent cOdcls cured the defect The
argument was concluded yesterday. For che executors
appeared the Hon. Loren Waldo for the widow, the
Hon III. C. Robinson for the son, the Hon. X ID. Hub
bard, and for the daughter, the Hon. VIM. NJ Evarts
and E. f. HYDE OF New-YOrk.