The New York herald., 1875-12-30
A CONTRACTORS ESTATE.


A decision yesterday rendered by Surrogate
Hutchngs in the OF the contested will OF the
late John J. Brown, which occupied the attention
OF the Court FOR some months past The decision
reads
John /. Brown whose will is the subject OF contest
in the proceeding before me- died the 2SLh day Of
March, 1875 in the sevenleth year of his age. The
instrument offered for probate executed by him
tho 5th day OF February preceding and IL provides
that after the payment Of his debts funeral expenses
and expenses OF administration, the residue Of his
estate, real and PERSONAL shall go TO "his WIFE Han
nah Brown, during her natural life, with remainder
over 10 his 'son and only child John L. Brown and
appoints the said ''we and SOM the executors OF
hs Will Immediately after the death Of the testator
the paper offered for probate and the oa:hs Of
Hannah +. ard John L. Brown (who in this proceeding
has been known John l.. Brown Jr. that they were
the wife and child respectively and only heirs OF the de-
cedent, il admitted TO probate. Subsequently an
application made by Mary Ann Brown. who
claimed 10 be the widow, and by three Of his sisters
who alleged that they were the only heirs Of the de-
ceden and upon such allegation the probate was set
aside and the validity Of the instrument brought
before for determination. From the evidence ap-
pears that tho decedent married in September,
1923, TO Mary Ann Pickering who renamed his ac-
knowedged wife until 1853 when she discarded by
him, and he commenced to openly live with Hannah T..
Pickering, the divorced wife Of Mary AIMS brother,
Hannah at taking the decedents name and being
thereafter known Hannah f. Brown and she in
trodueed into society his family and was always
recognized by the dccedent and others his wife. A
formal paper or separation executed between the
decedent and Mary Ann in 1855, which, after recitng
separate and ve apart Tor the remainder OF their Ves
each with the full of the other and having for
some time lived apart provides for the payment by the
deceden TO his wife Mary Ann the OF $40 600 and
the gift 10 her OF all or her personal effects, wardrobe,
jewery plate and household furniture, and all other
property which she has may become possessed Of,
each agreeing to interfere with the liberty, comfort
happiness OF the other Indeed. there is question,
under the evidence but that the decedent knew that
Mary Ann and none other his lawful wife, ana in
the proceeding before she must be held 10 be his
widow Had he died intestate she would not only
have been entitled to her dover rights in his real
estate, bat, the marriage being without issue living
she would be entitled to diStrbutive share in his
personal property under the statutes OF this State Bat
the deecdeut has nteTvened by testamcntary instru
ment which s offered for probate, in which he makes
Hannah f. and John L. Brown, Jr, his legatees, and
which instrument II il be valid must silence the claims
Of his wife and collateral kindred 10 be recognized
distributes Of his bounty except that the widow Mary
Ann be dvested OF her dover rights In the real
property of winch the decedent died seized But the
paper contested upon allegations Of want OF testa
meniary capacity IN the decedent and undue influence
exerted upon him by Hannah f. and John L. Brown,
Jr, thc sole icgatees hereunder But in discarding
his wiio i Is evident that the dccodent began TO live
openly With Hannah f. with whom he had been for
several years cohabtng privately, and that he
gave her forth 10 the world as his wife
Doubtless, g. far a. affection was concerned,
she TO him his wife; she was the mother
Of his son and for her and the he undoubtedly
entertained all the affection Characteristic Of husband
and father HIS whole language md conduct as proven
convince me that his sentiments toward them were Of
abiding Affection while toward his wife Mary Ann
there was no recognition by him Of any rghtfu claim
alter their separation regarded by him as grauty =
Under the circumstances Of the Il is not unreasoF
able that the deccdent should have selected Hannah
Brown as the beneficiary during her life OF the income
OF his estate and his son, John ]. Brown Jr Of the
remainder az er her death The he desgnaes
a. his only child, and for several years he had been
associated with Inc decedeD in the management Of his
business The affection Of parent Is often superior
10 All other sentiments and certainly the ev ldepco
In this case shows that for twenty years his
love for his wife had been superseded by similar
tmcnt for another, who was the mother OF his II
he had ignored them, and especially his only child
presumption OF mental impairment would have been
almost conclusive As TO the claims OF the other con
testants the sisters Of the decedent while II Is tru
fhey arc lawful next OF kim IL s matter OF cseryda,
experience that the affection which exists on the par
OF for his wife or for the one he regards in VI
light OF wife, and especially for child, is NOR
powerful passion than one which Is inspired by IN
relation Of brother and sister, and u Is evdent tha
with the deccdent the greatest objects Of hi
Affection woro Hannah Il. and John l. Brown
Jr, who for twenty-five years be had heI
out 70 the world a. his wife and son an