New-York tribune., 1874-10-29
THE ROLLWAGEN WILL CASE.
ARGUMENT ON THE APPEAL FROM THE DECREE OF
SURROGATE HUTcHINs. q.

ARGUMENT On THE APPEAL fhoM ihh "1
SURROGATE HUTCHINs
The strife over the will of Frederick Roll
wagen between his heirs, still continues the matter
now being before the General Term OF the Supreme
Court for argument the appeal from the decree OF
Surrogate Hutchings, made July 1874. refusing pro-
bate the will The parties to the action are Msgaa
lena Roll agen, who plaintiff, aud appeals ana FRED
erck Roll wageD. jr. Louis p, George d. and magda
ena Uhe younger) Rolwagen, Samuel s., FREDERICK H.
Sarah Joseph G., jr.. Maria, Jane Ann Pitt ana bar
bara Browning, who the defendants and respond
ents. Briefly the history Of the case, which has been
frequently published, is as follows:
The deceased Rollwagen, who was native OF Asace'
here In 1870 and took up the trade OF butcDer
acquiring large property According to Mr.. Chntons
long argument before the Surrogate 1t appears that Mr.
Rollwagens first two wives dead in 1866 and In
1869 began housekeeping at No 33a Ninthst Magda-
lena Hermann, As years Of age blood niece OF his
first wife, being housekeeper and servant On Sept.
49, 1871 Lena" she called, and Rolwagen were
married. and 1t In that same year that the iator
received stroke OF paralysis and lost the power Oh
speech. His will executed on June II, 1873 ana on
Sept. following cOdicil was made On Oct IL hoii'
wagon died. and his wife aud her brother Henry Herr
MANN applied TO the Surrogate to have the will and
codic admitted to probate. Objections were filed on
behalf of tho and grandchildren, and also on
hehalf of the child OF Lena" whose c ieglt.
were taken before the Surrogate, who refused probate
on the ground rst that when the instructions were
given by Lena TO Rollwagen for drawing the VIII ana
codlci and when these papers were executed decedeht
was speechless and had no means by which he could
cOmmu nicae his thoughts aud wishes ~ ne possessed
any second that at the execution OF these papers the
decedent physically unable to write and tnst there
was no satisfactory proof that he signed either paper
or authorized any else 70 sign for him or to AID hun
in signing other words there was no sufncient PROOF
execution, either ia regard to form or substance
such as the law requires respect to testamentary IN
struments; third, that the proofs clearly established
that both instruments and such execution as was SHOWN
were the result OF undue influence and other unlawful
MEANS rendering 1t void.
The counsel who argued the appeal yesterday were
William Henry Arnoux for the executors; George f.
Langbein for Frederick and George Is. Roilwagen; w.
Ii. Newschsfer for the other son, Louis r.; Malcolm
Campbell children of Rollwagens daugh-
ter Mrs. sarah Browning, and ID. r. Jaques and Henry
L. Clinton for Magdaena (the younger) The Issue Is
as to the condition OF Rolwagen at the time he sgnea
the WILL being claimed that his tongue was parayzed
so that he could not arculae, and that the Will could
not nave been signed bv him for lack OF strength ana
as to the question OF undue influence which Is claimed
was exercised him by his wife, the appellant Inc
argument concluded during the day, but decision
was, usual, reserved.