The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-08

nuspsnas qesrn sne was scr In bed win eryap
elias and was pregnant with child The estate left BY
the deceased consisted OF real and personal property Of
the value OF about S50 After the burial Of the de-
ceased and for several days thereafter the widow re-
fused to have tho will opened and Its contents sscer
tanned. Thereupon Mr. George Langbein attorney and
counsel OF Frederick Louis p and George D. Roliwagen
applied to Surrogate Hutchings subpoena command
ing the widow to produce the WILL which she accordingly
did Up to that moment the heirs at law and ext
OF kin had seen the will knew its contents. They
were surprised to ind that their father had barely LEFT
them life estate, and had given bulk of his great
Pss,isl house and lot and personal property
ossnor
$3.50 co. bird Of Ell his other personal properly and
lie wh,is SIss ssSrsn
M
hs wish real ests. Should be sold until
two
e M fsTsa
Herman and his eldest and heir at law FrederSk
been sefsesS
s
s c 10 SH % ss
V 5.~SS:
HssSw"ns .na wdoq IN and
ss ns ~ssS 3.
ave TPG'sa
nS X ss
The C I'm YIN TIE
Dn yer q Che win thereto and
by law third, that the deceased was incompetent and
o. lis % W. SAs %HS
The the @ OF @
Ing ssH All o1 the statute q in tying up the
= MT Campbell, as, attorney and guardian for the
Court TO the will declared invalid in law and to re-
o % az " S the
nS sf IN I'm Of se the
RC%si! ana Sadsn@whS ala her prssnantw
Ss TiI sSs cSi!a i issisImsss onss
questioned BY Who say The @ S was
G Be- by s s esre w
Hatehings and nd, in IL, the supreme Court:
s Ira aSa s E% q @
haIwsxsS, the ground that sss had ins6satS
6s VIE and gene to California without prSyidns
":
YORK Siiy Mr. Clinton made the argumen thar the
S the sS 4Ss %ss asS
opposed by Mr. Campbell as guarGiah and attorney for
alleged widow ~ and
OF the WILL the surrogate, after mature delberatiOn
wrote lengthy opinion upon the point and denied the
application.
David r. Jacques counsellor-at-Iaw, was appointed
chrstcned Mag lalena Rulwagen tho younger This
infant is in SINGULAR position as to the context Of this
will and cOdci OF its alleged deceased father Its in
tercss with the contestants to break tho WILL and its
interests against the contestants as to Its alleged e
gtmacy
THE TESTIMONY,
Joseph Releshefm, an nttorn ,yatlaw, was the first
witness called TO sustain the will and codcil lie was
one of the subscribing witnesses both and drew the
LENA" as she was called, the alleged widow the de-
ceased could not speak, and only nodded his head and
made nasal sound at the time OF the execution OF these
papers
Thesis another Of the subscribing witnesses and
the undertaken who bur led the ased that the
deceased said YES" in a low husky whisper, when
asked whether the papers were his last will and codcil
Dr. Henri Gulden, the remaining subscribing witness,
also testified that deceased could not speak at the ume
tcrial points.
The contestants opened their by calling Frederick
w. Geisscnhainer who testified that he had been the at
torney and counsel for deceased since his admis
sion to the bar IS that he drew several Wills and
that In March, 1873 he was sent Tor and called at the
house of decea ed with regard to question to party
wall he found deceased very feeble and PROSTATE; he
could not talk and made muttcrlng sound he could
not raise his hands and the witness could hold
through the medium Of "Lenan who protested trans
late the mutterng narticuate sounds juno Of the
same year he again sent for several times to como
ana draw the will and tho witness used to CO. After
lengthy cross-cxamnatiOn the proceedings were ad-
j0urned until this day, at ele ven A n.