The New York herald., 1875-12-27
A STRUGGLE FOR MONEY ENDED.
SURROGATE HUrcHINGs' DECISION IN THE HEAR
sEY WILL CONTEST.

SURROGATE HUTcHINGs' DECISION IN THE HEAR
sEY WILL CONTEST.
on the sth OF February Of the present year Eliza
Hearsey, who had been known for many years 10 her
neighbors Eliza Hail. died at No ~ Charlton street.
where she had resided for some years She left
an estate valued at SlOO 900. Soon after her death
paper propounded her last will and testament
IN the Surrogates office BY 1t the deceased left her
house and furniture Eliza and Harriet Loveridse,
daughters OF James and Elizabeth Loveridge, and the
residue OF her Mary Elizabeth Noyes, OF Har
rison square, Boston, who vas the daughter OF
cousin She named executors James Loveridge
father Of the first named lcgatees and Coolidge Bar
nard, intimate friend and member OF the household
Of Mrs Noyes, mother Of the residuary legatee The
validity of this document was contested by the Chdrens
Ala Society and by ST. Luke's Home for Ind gent Fe
males. both OF which institutions legatees under
q former will They charged the Loverdge family
with forgery, conspiracy and fraud and alleged that
the deceased not OF sound mind when the last viii
was made. The arguments Of counsel and the taking
OF evidence lasted Tor several months and the case was
then left with Surrogate Huchngs, who reserved his
decision. Upon the lst Of June last the HERALD pub
llshed the full story Of the SUIT up that date Afer
a careful examination Of the papers and the evidence
the surrogate has given a decision which reviews the
Of the case analyses the relation Of the decedent
to the parties mentioned in the various wsof which
no less than four executed prior TO the one offered
for probate-and concludes as follows
al must say there Is no evidence in the case in my
opinion justifyng the allegation OF undue influence
having exerted upon the mind of the dccedent by
MISS Moves and members OF the Loveridge family
There is a distinction always to lie made and which IS
seldom made by counsel between influence and undue
influence. cannot express this distinction better
than by quoting the language OF the Court Of Appeals
In the OF Seguine VS. segune heyes 661 10 67l
g folows:-
Undue influence be influence exercised by
imposition fraud, and such arises from
gratitude affection and Its eNertion the
very proved Ii will not be inferred from oppor
tunity or interest
Also
Neither vice argument persuasion ascend
gained BY affection. influence Importantly
a Will made freely and without coercion or fraud.
(ledfcid on Wills 524; Munger VIII, Phil r. r. 2Oo 4ool
'ehese principles Of law, to the allegation OF undue
influence apply my judgment most pertinently TO
the features Of this The kind services extended
BY the members OF the Lovcridge family TO this aged
and childcss woman undoubtedly Influenced The be-
quests she made to them. They may have expected
such practical recognition Of their kindness and that
OF their parents indeed, their conduct may have been
Influenced by such expectation But those acts OF
kindness do under the objection
Of undue influence There is no evidence
Of fraud or coercion having been exertcd
by any the benehciares and the absence Of those
the instrument cannot be avoided by reason OF any
thing shown the acts and conduct Of the Loverdges
Influencing the mind OF the decedent to provide for them
IN her Will In respect MISS Noyes she was proper
and natural object for the bounty Of the decedent
Therefore view Of the stated feel bound 10
hold that all tho allegations the basis Of the objection
intcrposcd by the contestants have been entirely un
sustained, and must decree the admission 70 probate
OF the paper propoundedh