South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1874-07-10
Remarkable Will Case.
GHosrLY EVIDENCE TAKEN IN COURT.

GHosrLY EVIDENCE TAKEN IN COURT.
The New York World publishes . letter
dated at Denton, Caroliua county, Mary
land, March IL, which gives On accouu. of
q Will case, decided there the day before,
that 10 to say the least very remarkable.
We give the points Of the SUDLEn will c,se,
therefore, without vouching for their truth.
fulness: SYLVESTER SUDLER, farmer
worth sl50,OO0, died in January, 1872, 10
Queen Anne's county, Md. He had wife
and son, and o brother named EMORY j.
SUDLER, lawyer. He employed the lat.
ter to draw up his will, and made him sole
executor. Three witnesses were present.
A few days before the sick mans 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 presence of two witnesses, tho Rev.
JOHN FLEMING, Mrs. HANNAH EDWARDS,
the widow, and her SOD, X. j. SUDLER, jr,
boy OF twelve years. The document left
oil the property TO the executor, except
So0O, which was given to the widow.
The widow aud both of the witnesse,
present, declared that the document read
was not the will of SYLVESTER SUDLER.
The executor insisted that it was and defied
Mrs. EDWARDS and the Rev. Mr. FLEMING
to deOy their signatures. lie 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 de-
wise of his property. lie gave notice also
that no would Gu the next day apply to the
Orphans Court at Cen.ervile, for probate
of the will This he did but the widow,
appearing likewise, entered caveat on her
own part, and as the next friend OF her SON.
EMORY SUDLER, jr. The Court appointed
a day to hear testimony in regard to the
will, and on that day all three of the wit
uesses TO the will were present, together
with the parties Interested. Mr. MATTHEW
Is. MERRITT, the third witness, swore pos
uively 10 his own signature, and 10 having
seen the other witnesses sign. He iden,i-
fed the document by its shape, the envel-
ope containing II, n water marG in the ps.
per, an ink blot upon one corner of the
folded sheet. Mrs. EDWARDS could not
swear that 1t was not her signature TO the
paper, but was not willing to swear that il
was. She had been in the house during
all Of Mr.. SYLVESTER SUDLER's illness,
helping his wife nurse him,and had repeat
edly heard dece6ent declare that he had
left oil his property Except certain leGocies,
which she named, and which were in &C
cordauce with the terms of the will read)
to his wife and child The will after il
was written, and before being executed,
had been for two days 10 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 the Raw.
Mr. FLEMING to read it to him el4o Hence
she was able to speak 30 positively about
its contents
The Rev. JOHN FLEMING corroborated
Mrs. EDWARDS statement, and testified
further, that before sending for his brother.
MIR. SYLVESTER SUDLER had mentioned to
him how he intended TO leave his property,
aud consulted him about giving The admin
istratiou to EMORY. EMORY, be said, was
a little wild, and he was afraid that giving
him such trust might lead TO trouble
Still it would be great help to his brother
to have the business, and ha wanted to az
sist EMORY il be could. This Mr.. FLEM.
ING strongly advised him to do, and EMO
RY was accordingly sent for at once. Sill
Mr.. FLEMING was not willing TO deny that
that was the document be had witnessed,
and bis signature appended to il.
Dr.. JAMES POTTER, the family physici.
an, testified that the decsdent bad epeated.
ly told him during his illness, that he had
left all bis property to bis vito and son.
On the other hand, EMORY SUDLER
pointed to the fact that none Of the three
witnesses we're able to dispute their sigma
lures, and he demanded that the will be at
once admitted to probate. lie said he was
quite we'll aware that his brother SYLvEs-
TER bad made statements 10 regard 10 his
tesiamentsry intentions that we're At vari-
ance With bis testimentary act, aud further
stated that he bad written the copy Of the
form testified to by Mrs. EDWARDS and the
Rev.Mr. FLEMING,at his BROTHER request,
add for the purpose of deceiving. There
was reason for all this, aud for the peeu.
liar character Of his brothers will; but his
brother bad told him this 10 confidence, and
be was very reluctant to expose family Sc
creis to the public gaze. The widow was
quite well informed Of what be meant, but
he would not publish it unless it was abso-
lutely necessary 20 the establishment of his
rights, aud unless the Court compelled bin
to speak. The widow poremptorily denied
that she understood the oavetee's ibsipua.
tons, & defed him 10 reveal any family &C.
crets that would be damaging to any person
besides himself The Court thought that il
could not decide upon the validity Of the will
until It had sifled the matter to the bottom.
butin Difference TO Mr.SUDLER's reluctance
to testify adjourned over for a week, holding
tho question under ndvisemen,.
81 Lnr, IL c.. =.