The New York herald., 1874-10-29
THE ROLLWAGEN WILL CASE.

This case, which has been before the courts for
. long time, and promises to be the subject OF
further litigation for an indefinite period to come,
was the topic OF prolonged argument Yesterday
in Supreme Court, Chambers, before Judge Bar
rett IL came up on an appeal nom the decision
OF Surrogate Hutcnings, setting aside the wnl.
The facts or the case have already been gwen in
the HERALD, and 1t Is only necessary at present
to brieny recapitulate them. Frederick Roll
wagen, native OF Alsace, came TO this country
In 1929, settled in this city and pursued the avo-
cation OF butcher. From his savings he made
profitable investments IN real estate. and left,
at the time OF his death, which occurred October
three times married By his nrst wife he
had four children. three OF whom are still
living His nrst wife died In 1865, shortly sue
ceeding which he again married, but there was no
issue Of the second marriage. In 1871 he was
paralyZed, losing entirely the power OF speech In
September oil TINS year he was married to Magda-
servant and housekeeper. Previous to his death
Lena" as she was always called, and Henry Her
mann, her brother, engaged lawyer TO draw MS
will. subsequently codicil was made to this
win. Lena was the principal beneficiary under
the will and codicil. Deceased was an uneducated
man, being unable to read, and never having
learned 10 write anything except his name. d.
recty succeeding MS death Lena and her brother
applied to the Surrogate to have the VIII and
codicn admitted to probate. Objections were
ed on Osnal, Of all the children a,sa
on behalf OF the child Of Lena, whose
legitimacy Is disputed. After trial before the
Surrogate, during which nearly 5000 iollos OF EVIL
dence were taken, the Surrogate rendered MS
DE- cs0n in July last refusing as stated to probate
either the alleged viii or codlcit The Surrogate
held that the proofs clearly established that they
were the result OF undue influence and other un-
lawful means, rendering the same void.
Mr.. Arnoux, who appeared on behalf OF the ap-
peliant made an extended argument, giving his
reasons why she decision OF the Surrogate should
be set aside. He cOntended tnat the will In ques-
tion was duly executed according TO the require
ments Of the Reused Statues OF this state; that
the execution OF the will was properly acknowl-
ed ged; that at the time OF its execution the
testatOr was competent to execute valid
will; that the same was neither procured
through undue influence nor any other unlaw-
ful means, and that the Surrogate erred,
in matters OF law, in his rulings at
the trial, which alleged errors were duly cited
and commented upon. Mr.. Clinton, In reply, in
sisted that the evidence clearly proved Lnat the
physical condition OF the testatOr before and at the
time Of the execution OF the Will and cOd1cil was
such that whether he possessed testable capacity
or not 1t was impossible lOr him TO cause hts res-
intentions 70 be SO embodied In q
written instrument that the Court would adjud &c
such instrument TO be his Will or c0dici for the
reason that he could not communicate his
thoughts or wishes By speech, oy writing or by
signs. The sum and glst OF the argument was that
the facts clearly proved and that the Surrogate
had properly found that the win and codicn were
gotten up by Lena and her brother,
Henry Hermann, and that they were never exe-
cuted by the testator. The Court reserved de-
ciSlou,