New-York tribune., 1875-09-27
THE TAYLOR WILL CASE.

POSITION AS COUNSEL TO MRS. TAYLOR.
In 1871 James b. Taylor died, and will
rportng to be his was presented to surrogate u'eh
in some weeks afierward Under ii the bulk OF hs es
tate was given to his wife, she heng appointed cxeeA
and Edward II. Tracy, who died recently the executor
in proportion to his estate Mr. Taylor lcit ht avery
small sum TO his only granddaughter, Kate D. Howlahu
Mrs Rowland contested the will on the ground tiiat IL
WAS a forgery SURROGATE Hutchngs admitted 1t TO pro-
bate, and the Supreme Court General Term a'hiheu o
appeal the Suroga:es decision, but the Court oi hp
held that questions were raised which merteu aJui'
trial and directed such trial, which has not yet taken
place.
Meanwhile there had been suits instituted against tie
estafe the majority OF them in Oneida County, growing
out of Mr. Taylor's business, and III these Judse''
were recovered against the estate to inc amount oi a'o
100000 which have gone TO the Court OF Appeals anu
come back to the surrogae's Court on motion 10 eopi
the executor and exccutrix to pay them o'Her hus"
on has arisen. growing out of the character "i some
the assets Of the estate and the cndeGvor- o' e contest
ant 10 remove Mr. Tracy from his eXccu,orslp In si'
these litigatons down TO May last Mr. Andf'"s FePe
sen;ed Mrs. Taylor az her attorney In some o. e H'
cation he had employed Senators Herman ana H"seoe
Conkling while Charles Tracy who represented more
directly the executor had employed other counsel III
Nav last Mrs. Taylor gave notice To Mr. hndrews that she
had concluded TO substitute Mcssfs. Wnglte Cnen as
bcr ATTORNEYS in his place. and Mr. Andrews declined
TO surrender her papers, she moved hst IN the ov"
County suits aud Saturday in lie nam SUIT ociore
Jud,e Donohue in Supreme Court, Cnambefs to compel
substitution Of her new attorneys III his piee' anu
surrender by him of her papers.
In rcnly Mr. Andrews says that down to the 2fth OF
MAY last lie had TO idea that Mrs Taylor had any discon-
tent with hin. There lad been much delay through the
action of Mrs. Howland-deay which he believed was
purroely nlerposed by her advisers, but he claims not
n; all hy mis- .,ut He pressed the preparation ' Nv
ral Of the until Mrs Taylor herself Sihte M ,aI @ se
about 10 renew friendly relations WIN il7 & i"M
land and desired lin II suspend hither acloi tAetn
were, he gays. designing persons ABOUT Mis iis V' 80
wiOm he objected, and he received throush thgn ;
sii,t world, asking lin 10 C!nioY FafioIs ooui!-
sci, and some Occasions puiporting 20 nc iro'n
Of Mrs Taylor accept for her guide such caminUrica
tons led iin not 70 rely on Ior judgment ou' .at i[ o
MAY 10. 1879 he letter dsinssing hlnl was dael lay
40 lie received note III answer 10 one o ms o" u, ~
w lanSy M 1a 2r D Mat say ses yG5 GiTf (s
tnat yon should mink to thi X had no gratitude
for yoH tint 1as alwa} been kind 10 me NoT. dear
lufus, Kate Fox is coin:rg 10 sec ne TINS alcin1on
wish you woad come 80 that 20" can hars s tain VIA M
referred TO- Mr Andrews says IA the celebrated spiritual
medium, through whom hc had frequently received Wna'
pro,essed be COMMUNICATIONS from distinguished con-
sol pow in tne other world. ANA thai INC jim re-
ferret 10 The late James L. Taylor. dr. Ann:eNs aus
thai Edward H. Tracy, the executor, li&d Wl'tci mn
that the papers were the p9pery o. TIE eHtSator as M wG
the cxecutrx, and forbade Kim 10 give thcih up ',
ing that his retainer from the executor wds moi revo;e
,as M toT M five yyT y @ labor 10" the estats and that he
las actually advanced 10 Mrs Taylor 4eeo3 o. ana tft
she has frequently tod MN iDal cN'tit IoI t "oJ :"
advanced she would turned into the streets
and BECOME a beggar. Aiivits of George ". Duryea
William T. MoniaYcrdc, and HrnIy &. Maiteson were
read confirming Ar. Andrewss statements as " the Ii
cations. . -, -, :. -,
MIR andrews in tue early part OF the litigation aHd Der
long confidence in hiu ayB that In May her coii'eic2
was shaken In HIM Size had become Thoroughly ds-
eusted with tie way her affairs had been nia'a3tu
Though whether the will would have been Sustained or
rejected She would have been emitted 10 large POI ion
of her husbands estate get with tie exception ol thc
house IN Nadjaouayc tc furniture she had received
l1.l
borr,,,,ny money fgicnds. The estate had been
mjFIuaHagcd as To be greatly uSpfcci,cd' i' siic
had been Gned for large amounts iof havlhg i..u 70
u.lfOrn something she required 10 DO a. cHectlA
nearly tirce years. and Mr. Andrews though i,'li oI
nrouses gaye ncr satisfaction in regard 20 what was
song on The five years litigation was apparently rs
far from being terminated as ever ctter r"ceVcd
nom him threatening to abandon her suit ut first fright
eued her but after consultation with friends she decided
TO substitute new attorneys i0r hil lis slatehti'
naIe II, tc Oneida suits Of her being Influenced by sr
itua communications. she said, was untruthlu iiad
hesn true il would been brcach oi professional CON
6d,uer not true she could NOT furtHcr con-
tInue SIR. Andrews counsel without loss OF sell
o. these papers Col Wingate insisted that Mrs. Tay
had an absolute right tO change her attorney, dnd
under the OF tine estate Tthou. Iatlng
Ar Andrews before such Substitution He could come
IN "a creator establish his claims, and be pald WIN
Others Counsel for Ar Andrews argued th;t De fiSnt
OF a Client to change attorney was, under the lJh
lIle Il qualified one, within the discretion or the Court
80 project attorneys against the nEi2tisGde OF eli
EMS AMI clients against Themselves Tie REMOVAL or an
ATTORNEY could only i've on cause SHOWN. Judge
oohne suggested that the order of substitution ne
made security being given to Hr. Andrews Tor slcn
sums as lie should he found 10 bs entitled to. Mr.. WIN
gate thought tnat would DO mpractlcbic. Tie Court
reserved rs decison