The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1874-04-22
A REMARKABLE WILL CASE.
4 GHOST IN COURT.

county, Mu.s MdECH 16s WHICH, gives
an account of will case, decided
there the day before, that is, to say
the least, very remarkable. We
give the points Of the Sudler will
case therefore without vouching for
their truthfulness
Sylvester Sudler, q farmer worth
$685. 900, died in January, 1872, in
Queen Anne's county. Md. He
had a wife and son, and brother
named Emory J. Sud!er, q lawyer.
He employed the latter TO draw up
his will, and made him sole execu-
tor. Three witnesses were present.
A few days before the sick man 3
death the executor returned home.
taking the will with him. The day
after the funeral, at which he was
present, he read the will in the pres
ence of two of the witnesses, the
Rev. John Fleming, Mrs. Hannah
Edwards, the widow and her son,
Z. j. Sudler. Jr., boy of twelve
years. The document left all the
property to the executor, except
$500 which was given to the widow.
The widow and both of the wit
nesses present declared that the
document read was not the will of
Sylvester SudIer. The executor in
sisted that it was, and deied Mrs.
Edwards and the Rev. Mr.. Fleming
to deny their signatures. He said
he could prove the will, and if it was
disputed he could show the court
the reason why his brother Sylvester
had made such devise OF his prop
erty. He gave netice also that he
would on the next day apply to the
Orphans Court at Centerville for
probate of the will. This he did
but the widow appearing likewise,
entered q eaveat on her own part,
and as the next friend of her son,
Emory Sudler, Jr. The court ap-
pointed a day to hear testimony in
regard to the will. and on that day
all three of the witnesses to the will
we're present together with the
parties interested. Mr.. Matthew B.
Merritt, the third witness swore posi-
lively to his signature, and to hav-
ing seen other witnesses sign. He
identified the document by its shape
the envelope containing it, q water
mark in the paper, and an ink blot
upon one corner Of the folded sheet.
Mrs. Edwards could not swear that
it was not her signature to the pa
per, but was not willing to swear
that it was. She hid been in the
house during all OF Mr.. Sylvester
Sudler's illness, helping his wife
nurse him, and had repeatedly heard
decedent declare that he left all
his property except certain lega-
cies which she named, and which
were i'm accordance with The terms
of the will read) to his wife and
child. The will after it was written,
and before being executed, had been
for two days in the custody of the
deceased. He had kept it under
his pillow; had read it himself; had
made her read it to him, and had
got Rev. Mr.. Fleming to read it to
him also. Hence she was able to
speak SO positive about its contents.
| Rev. John Fleming cerroborated
Mrs. Edwards statement, and testi-
fed further that before sending for
his brother, Mr.. Sylvester Sudler
had mentioned to him how he in.
tended to leave his property, and
consulted him about giving the adj
ministration to Emory. Emory lie
said was q little wild. and he was
afraid that giving him such a trust
might lead to trouble. Still it would
be great help TO his brother to
have business. and he wanted to
assist Emory if he could. This Mr.,
Fleming strongly advised him to do,
and Emory was accordingly sent for
ut once. Still MIR. Fleming was not
willing to deny that that was not
the document he had witnessed and
his signature appended to it.
DIR. James Potter, the family ply.
sician testified that the decedent
had repeatedly told him during his
illness that he had left all his prop
erty to his wife and son.
On the other hand. Emory Sudler
pointed to the fact that none of the
three witnesses were able to dispute
their signatures, and he demanded
that the will be at once admitted to
probate. He said he was quite well
aware that his brother Sylvester had
made statements in regard to his
testamentary intentions that were
at variance with his testamentary
act, and further stated that he had
written the copy Of the form testifi-
ed to by Mrs. Edwards, and the
Rev. Mr.. Fleming, at his brother S
request, and for the peculiar charac-
ter of his brother will but his
brother had told them with conf
dence, and he was very reluctant to
expose family secrets to the public
gaze. The widow was well aware
of what he meant, but he would not
publish it unless it was absolutely
necessary to the establishing of his
rights, and unless the court compel
led him to speak. The widow per-
emptorily denied that she under
stood the caveatee's insinuations,
and defied him to reveal any family
secrets that would be damaging TO
any person besides himself. The
court thought that it could not de.
eide upon the validity of the will un-
til it had sifted the matter 10 the
bottom, but, in Difference TO Mr.
SudIer's reluctance TO testify. ad-
journed over for week, holding the
question under advisement.
When the court next met it an
nouced that Mr.. Emory j. Sudler' >
further testimony was necessary TO
determine it's action in regard to the
probate. Mr.. Sudler was according
ly again put upon the stand, and
testified that in q private interview