The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-06-20
suRaoeA1E's COURT.
Eleanor Croes' VILLA Favored Daugh-

=
ter.
Before Surrogate veeder.
The Surrogate has been for some time hearing
the contest Of the will OF Eleanor v. NJ Croes and
yesterday rendered a decision admitting the vii
to probate. In announcing the decision, the Sur
r0gate made the following comprehensive and in
teresting statement OF the easel
The testatrtx was an old lady and for many years
had been confined to the house, or at least seldom
went out. Her constant companion and attendant
was her daughter Anna, the legatee under the will
offered for probate. great amount Of testimony
have narrowed the case down to the simple ques-
tiOn-Had the testatrix testamentary capacity at
the time she made this will The witnesses to
the will, Messrs. Williams and Wardell, who also
drew the WILL positive in their assertion that
Mrs. Cr0es when she executed the will, was pos
save 81 t hoW se Wished she
will drawn, and from the evidence Of these per-
sons 1t appears she comprehended the act she was
engaged In. That the testatrix was partial, and
OMITTED PROPER OBJECTS OF HER BOUNTY
from the provisions OF her will may be true, yet
this is not Of itself evidence OF an irrational mind
or Sufficient reason why we should refuse probate
or such q will We may not knowall the circum-
stances which governed her in thus preierring one
daughcer to the exclusion OF all the other children.
The principal opponent Is well situated, and was
not In need Of her mothers assistance besides =
GOODNESS had sprung up between them, and for q
long time she had not visited her mother. The
amount OF the property. is not large, and Mrs.
Croes did not consider it ofas great value as It is
her mother has shown her, for she has
SERVED HER MOTHER CONSTANTLY
and faithfully for many years. She set her face
piness and devoted her life 70 her mother. True
the testatrix was very singular person and much
In Of weak
] cannot but believe she was on the
subject Of religion sSy eccentric
to consider, believe she was possessed OF SUM-
Gent intelligence to devise her property. She has
done nothing nnn nat n, 10 making TINS VIII sne
and comforter In those many, many years OF trial
and suffering through which she passed. The chief
director had treated her as rational being, had
held her responsible for her debts, had accepted
her power Of attorney and conveyed away under
this authority portion OF her property. he had
which he tells US was only done to secure an equal
distribution. Where was the necessity for any
will to make equal distributions Does not the law
in case OF intestacy distribute equally the effects
OF the intestatef The testimony or the medical
experts called BY the contestants is based upon q
establish. The case Is by no means free nom doubt
Mrs. CrOes was
VERY PEEBLE-MINDEp
and took no part in even charge of the ordinary
AFFAIRS OF lifc she was treated and by all her family
considered person requiring attention and adj
physically, that made 1t easy for any one so dis
posed to influence her; out no such question 10
triS, when she Sa1 executed this will comprehendsd
It's provisions, and that her then mental condition
warrants US 10 considering It as her rational act,
Probate OF this will must therefore be made.
The amount involved Is about twenty thousand
dollars.
Will Rejected.
John MADDEN contested his father's will on the
ground that the old gentleman was incompetent to
make win when he executed the instrument.
The case has been pending over year. Yesterday
the Surrogate decided In favor OF the contestant
and declared the will null and void. The testators
estate Is valued at about thirty-hvc thousand
dollars.