The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-16
STEWARDS ESTATE
Argument on Motion to Revoke
the Probate of the Will.
SURRoGATE'S DECISION RESERVED.

and next Of KIN of the late Alexander T. Stewart and
the executrx and the executors OF the will OF
yesterday before Surrogate Calvin. II motion
behalf OF the contestants 10 have probate the will
revoked, and to allow them to in and prove their
claims to blood relationship to deceased and their
claims on his large estate The petitioner in the case
Thomas Bailey, citizen OF Brooklyn but Joined with
him IN tho contest Mary Deans, Ann Jane Bailey,
Augustus Turncy, George W. rurney, Samuel Turney,
James Turney William IL Turney, Catherine 4. Tur-
noy and Lucreta n. Turney.
There hardly standing room in the court during
the proceedings the crowd remaining tho close
wthstanding the overpowcrng heat under which all
sweltcrcd The opening Of tho loyal tournament
delayed BY The calling Of the calendar The proceed
ings were generally confined to argument Of counsel,
and nothing was developed with regard to the claims
ofthe contestants
Acssrs William O. Bartlett, Elihn Root and William
D. Booth appeared counsel for james Bailey and his
brothers and sisters and Tor tho Turney family on
whose application tho order to show why the
probate should DO vacatc was granted by the Sur
rogatc.
Ex-Judge Henry Z. Davies, Henry II. Anderson,
William A. Beach and Henry l. Clinton appeared as
counsel for Mrs. Stewart and Judge Hilton.
rnE PERSONAL ESTATE QUESTION
Tho case being called on, x.Judgo II. Z. Davios ad
dressing the Court, said he appeared for Cornela NJ
Stewart. and asked that tho petition far tho per-
sona estate Of Mr.. Stewart is concerned DO denied.
Tho Will has been proved and has been obatcd II is
on ne In this Office There nothing In tho petition
OF James Bailey to show of competency Tho
fourth clause only goes that tho will has been
made under undue influences The statute allows
year Tor allegations to be filed for vncating the will.
Tho petitioner has right to challenge the per-
sonal estate and has no standing In court to revoke
this will Judge Dawes about TO speak this
point when Mr. Bartlett conceded that point Of the
case point OF law the part OF the contestants
Judge Davies then asked for separate order Of do
NAL with regard to tho personal estate and alter
argument the order granted but the Surrogate
that tho signing thereof should be postponed until tho
close OF the day.
motion was then made by counsel for the will that
tho application be dismissed on the ground that the
Court had authority TO open the probate contendng
that the opponents to the will had not made prima
fucc case upon their papers whereby Inc probate
should be opened that under the OF 1870
y gwen To the Surrogate to set aside his cortl-
cate made upon the will admitting 1t To probate. Tho
petitioner only alleges the execution OF the will
was obtained by undue influence Tho petitioner,
counsel maintained could gain nothing not foot OF
tho property, II ever should happen that the probate
should 10 set aside.
Mr. Beach said they should insist that the Court had
no Jurisdiction 70 set aside the probate OF real
estate ani that counsel should proceed with tho argu.
ment
The Surrogate observed that before ne should decide
upon important a question he must have time to
consider the matter.
Counsel then proceeded to read the papers in the
case-the answers OF Mrs. Stewart, Judge Hilton and
Mr. Libby
Bailey Mi The SAID Cornea stewart svs~s that sss
WA married 10 tho said les s T. - dscss.sd IL
lived with him his wife 20 the time Of his dccease 0,h Of
Gornsiia has knowledge information sui.
ssn, to II as Ar, the sss e @ the
either o them collateral relatives Of the ful
s..s heir. "a nT KIN s ss '1 S
the .s w md sH xe a a % Ap
the said Surrogate the will Of the real
issued " Surrogate the persons naned tie
sS Will :, sss rs s and that e
pication for the probate OF such will and codcs xna tie
hSs the same we're made psass IN great or
MIA La ~ s mo- M Of u ~ The
aud she stated In her petition Tor hs probate OF said Will
in respect and further during long
welded s sa s 81
petition his relatives in any related him by
'''' Csigned coRNELIA NJ STEWART.
tbs JOINT ANSWER.
Tho next paper read was the JOINT answer OF Corne-
liza NJ Stewart executrix, and Henry Hilton and Will.
lam Libby, executors IN which they that the said
Cornelia n stewart married TO the said DECEASED
&C that upon information and belief they deny that
the said petitioner. any other persons mentioned in
the first clause OF said petition. any or either or
them collateral relatives OF tho full blood arc
neirs.at-law next OF kin OF the SAID Alexander r.
Stewart, deceased Respondents further that tho
will and tho codicls thereto duly proved before
tho Surrogate the 18th OF April, 1876; that
Tho said viii and codiclls duly admitted
to probate by said SURROGATE q viii
Of real and personal estate and that
said Surrogate to tho persons named IN said will being
these respondents cxccurix and executors thereof
upon tho duties OF their oscc, &c That the applica-
tiun for probate OF said will and codicils made
we're made .rvaciv Or seere,v or ~ sra
unusual haste; that the said Alexander 7. Stewart
1t tho time Of his dcalh was extensively engaged
mercantile affairs and In tho improvements Of large
OF real estate and had very large number OF
persons in his employment; that II essential to
save said business from interruption and said es,ate
IRON loss; that no cessation IN tho manage
Of its aIIairs should take place, and IN
asmuch a. the Surrogate could not attend
said probate the following day tho proofs thereof
made the evening Of the funeral Of the tesla
tor for the convenience OF his widow, one OF these
by said Alexander Stewart that he had no
relative or next Of kin living, and they had been
said Alexander r. Stewart left him surviving any col.
lateral relatives, hors al law or next Of kin They
aver that tho said papor writings SO admitted to
bate, arc the last Will and testament Of the said de-
ceased. and deny that the same were executed,
were procured from the faid Alexander I.
stewart by circunvention that any influence
upon him BY Henry Hilton or any othor
person whomsocvcr; that since tho issuance OF said
the specific cgaccs mentioned in said will and codcils
or and from the personal Of the Alexan-
ecr I. Stewart deceased. and have received due and
eectuai discharges from said several lcgatoes of and
from the same
HLToN's ANSWER.
In his answer for himself Mr. Hilton sets forth that
he knswthe deceased tor over twenty years prior his
DEATH tnat his stewartsI last Will and testament was
drawn by him Mr. HiIton) directions received
from the deceased; that no was IN the full
vigor OF his intellect and memory and Ut
the time OF receiving such directions no other person
than both present II did not then, /" continued
Mr. Hilton, Tor at any time influence attempt TO
huence hun In respect thereto, nor did or know
Of any other person doing Untll after his death
communicated the contents Of the will codi-
ellis to his vile. Cornelia H. Stewart, any other
person. For very many years past have frequently
heard him remark that he did know Of The exist
OF single blood relative, and II has been over
aud again. during the oame period, published IN the
newspapers Of this country and Europe, when writing
OF him, that he had
KNOWN BLOOD RELATIVE LIVING
At tho time oil the death OF Mr. Stewart / had undcr
his direction, general charge Of his affairs par
tcunrly those affecting his individual property