The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-01-19

One Court nner Another Rciectiug a WIN as
fraudulent aud Void.

The Court Of Appeals rendered de-
cision Yesterday in the famous Rolwagen will
In favor of the contestants. Tnts care.
which has occupied so much Of the attention OF
the courts for the last two or three years, pos
sesses some features Of extraordinary interest.
Frederick Rollwagen. a native Of Alsaee came
To New York 1899. For many years he was
engaged In the provision business From time
to time he invested bis savings in real estate,
and all his Investments turned out profit .hly.
At the time 81 his dc til, on the nth Of October,
$50 he had accumulated an estate OF about
SSOO,QOI By his hrst wife nc had three sons and
one daughter. soon aft "a the death Of his first
wife, In 1888, Mr.. Rollwaxen married the widow
Sophia Zwick. She died in the following year.
There was no issue OF the second marriage.
In 1859 Rollwaeen took into his employment az
single woman about fortv-ilvo We, - old. who
was blood niece OF his lrst wife. Magd lena
!who Throughout the case has been called
"Iena') had some twenty years previously iivcd
In Rullwagt ma family NJ servant. From 1862 tho
health 81 Ar. Hollwagen failed rapidly In expect
to mind and body, aud he became more and
moro dercndent upon his servant Lena. ON the
1H day - September. Ill. the ceremony OF
marriage betw EN- Lena mi Rolwaeen WIS ucr-
formed y clcrgymgn ~ this CITY without the
knowledge of any or Rollwngen's family.
After III, mari ~ Lena and her ruther.
He ~ Hermann. had fuIl pOssessi0n Of Rolf
wagons eisate. aud for two years before his
death he WIS par lyzed. end unable to speak or
to communicate his thou 'h;H in my way.
Soon after the death Of Rollwaren. Lena ana
her brother Henry Hermann, offered for pro-
Holiwapen Oh the 18th ~ June, 1878, ard codi-
eli bearing date the N OF September, 1873. iy
the will and cOdicl The heirs oi Rullwugen were
subs tantiglly di~inhcitcd. md most OF the prop
erty went u the alleged widow.
The sons Of Rollwa.en and the children " his
deco sod daughter contested the PROBATE or
both the will and the codiciL on the ground that
the dccrdout never si.u-l either; that on nc
count ot his par lvsis, ana esDec NV lis pafalV-
sis 81 the tongue he was unable tn cOmmuni-
cate his thoughts. or TO give any directions re-
specting q will or any other paper; ana that II
the dccsdcnt executed the Will and rodici,
they were obtained by fraud aud undue in
nucnce.
Henry l.. Clinton was the leading counsel for
the cont stants. The case occupied about ak
months before the Surrogate. and testimuuyCnv-
erng nearly 2.OOO printed paees was taken. On
the 81 of July. 1874. surrogate Hutchings re-
jected buth VIII aud codiril.
Lena suucnled ana the case was argued In Oc-
tober, lS1i Dy william II. Armour on the part
OF the appellant and ty Henry /. Clinton on be-
half ~ the contestsIits In December following
the supreme COur aiiiru ed Surrogate Hutcu-
ing-'s decision, and Lena at once appealed To the
Court 81 Appeals. and In November last the case
was argted IN that court Nv William a. IL acn
and William Henry ArnOuX or the part Of tie
appellant enal, and by Henry l.. Clinton on the
part of the contestants Tn. Court 81 Apueals
hns decided that the Will snd cCdicil were fraud