The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-23
CHARLOTTE CUSHMAN'S WILL.
WHY IT IS NOT ADMITTED TO PRoBAT1-JoHN
YOUNG scANxoN, OF CHICAGO, 4 WITNESS,
WANTED.

WHY IT IS NOT ADMITTED TO PRoBATz-JoHN
YOUNG scAMxoN OF CHICAGO, WITNESS,
NEWPORT r. l., April 10 1879
Notwithstanding the renowned actress, Miss Char
lotto Cushman, has been dead for time, her will
has been probated Her counsel presented It ut
the Court Of Probate for admission March TO- and Is
has been presented several times sncc but the Judge
Probate has refused each time to prove It. The
torney OF the deceased that he represents wey
man Grow, Edwin c. Cushman, nephew and adopted
son OF Miss Cushman, and William H Hargadine all
OF 81 LOUIS trustees Of tho last will and
testament Of tho deceased, which was sx-
ocuted in Chicago January IL, 1873, in the
presence Of four witnesses. The handwriting
OF two OF the witnesses tho instrument has been
proved The third witness, Willis W. Felt, is dead,
and the fourth, }. Young scammon, cannot be found.
Tho latter is believed TO DO in Chicago although Edwin
G. Cushman. mentioned above, alleges that he Is In
Washington, ID. Z. Everything has been done to
ferret out tho whereabouts Of this important witness,
and il Is Of tho most singular incidents record
that he has not written to the heirs informing them Of
his residence The attorney informed the Judge yes
terday that no considered the delay unnecessary,
as no one had APPEARED 70 oppose tho al
mittance Of tho Will TO probate, In view
Of the fact that the codicil had been proved
and that everything had been done to ind the
missing witness. He continued-A Will TO DO admit
tod must DO made to appear by proof to have been
signed, sealed aud declared the win OF the tcstator In
tho presence Of y certain number OF witnesses rs
prescribed by law The primary proof was that tho
witnesses must DO nrst called and II they cannot DO
found and beyond the power Of the Court party
to produce, from death, insanity. or other cause
ondary evidence must DO gwen and that secondary
evidence must be consdcred as proof positive
Of tho witnesscs' handwriting. He conlended
Of the Witnesses in the case in question
sufficient, especially when tho codcil had been
proved However Il question for the discretion
Of the Court and that he strongly urged should DO cx-
creased 10 decree that the will legally proven and
should be admitted TO probate without any further de-
lay. Ho argued that when there opposition 10
a will which bore upon IL face due regularity the wit
ought not to be required 70 attend the probate
before any objection made IL tho wit
ncsscs near NJ hand
Judge sterne OF the Probate Court, called upon
last evening by n HERALD correspondent In order
what that gentleman had to IN reeronce to tho
matter He stated that the proof OF the WILL NJ Tar
presented, was not satisfactory to him. Only one
had been found TO the codcl and Two witnesses
10 prove signatures OF the subscribing witnesses
to The will. He had no proof OF the two remaining
signatures. He would be willing prove and admit
the will II no had bat ono Of persons who signed Il
10 swear to the same. The others, no could legally
claim. were out OF his jurisdiction. This was tho prac
ticc this court and he thought elsewhere, and he
should adhere 10 his original decision. not 10 prove
until he could have proof Of the handwriting OF the
present down. and 50 he continued the for two
weeks longer In order that the persons Interested
might have ample lind the desired witness The
family, he stated were perfectly willing 10 let the law
take Others state that they have becn put
20 little annoyance and Inconvenience by the action
OF Judge sternc Tue latter gentleman. who has held
the once for many years, and wbo by his wisdom and
adaptation the business OF the PROBATE Court has
never through mismaua gement otherwise had any
difficulty tho settlement Of Wills &C, has consulted
the lawyer the city and or the learned
IN the state, Francis ". Peckham. Esq, upon tho
matter, and the latter has informed him that he has
pursued tho right course and that II Is his duty re-
fuse PROBATE VIII with further proof than has
been brought before the Court Judge Stcrno will.
therefore, as Mr.. Pcckham " tbe City Solicitor heed
his advice 10 this important matter.
IL is understood that Miss Cushman has icft about
&jOJ. 0U0 and that, contrary 10 tho expectation Of
many, she has not lcf anything for charitable pur
poses This, OF course, IL rumor no one out.
Of the family aud their attorney know anything or
It's contents The family determined that tho
public shall be kept Ia darkness 70 until
such time as II is duly nicd.
Mr.. Edwin y. Cushman, son-iu-law Of Me- Grow.
mentioned above Is occupying The elegant villa Of the
late Mss Cusbman Ia this city II 10 located on Rhode
Island avenue, and built four ago specially
Tor us late owner She, having boon Ia tho habit OF
coming 10 Newport during tho summer months and
being pleased with the place. determined 10 build
and spend the evening Of her days A. th the queen Of
watering pIAceA