The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-07-17
Bon Of a Virginia Slave Heir to a
Quarter of a Million.
A LIFE MYSTERY UNVEILED.
Penalty Of Permitting Prisoner to
Attend His Mothers Funeral.
MATRIMONY PREFERRED TO PRISON.


him In December last at supreme Court, Special
Term About two years ago John ID. Lewis
prominent New York merchant, was thrown
from his carriage while driving In Central rarK
and Instantly xilIed. His lie was always sur
rounded By mystery. Though passing Tor white
man In fashionable society and among the merchants
on looking at him would always say to himself,
s'that man foreign blood IN his veins" no
mover would disclose anything about his history, and
always claimed that he mad no relatives In the
world His lie in short, puzzle. His
saow complexion, long straight black hair, pierre
Ing but fascinating eyes, attracted attention Few'
however supposed that It indicated negro origin. The
rcnoral supposo on was that no OF Creole or Span
ish descent He left estate valued at $3.50 600 and
peculiar Will, In which no provided, after giving
about SIS 900 to some acquainances that the income
OF his estate should be gwen 10 Miss Lizzie Barton
Taylor only, however long MS she remained single
On her marriage was 10 cease; but on hcr death the
income was to 90 to her children, provided she had
any. II she had none. on her death she was to DO
buried in the same plot In Greenwood Cemetery with
John D. Lewis and thon the estate was to be used up
In decorating the joint grave. Though he was Obliged
70 appear IN court frequently during his lifetime
lawyer sharp enough 10 elicit IRON him any
details OF his BIRTH The testimony IN court upnitco
the vel under which this sought In hts
lifetime 10 keep from the pubic ms ancestry.
Forty years ago he was porter IN tne
Bright and active he soon became clerk Seeking
hener sphere Of duty and one Of more brilliant pros
pects no became salesman in tho house OF K. q W.
toch K Co. He formed partnership with Two fellow
clerks under the name OF Lewis, Haviland Co. Hcro
no amasscd large fortune. Alter time this firm
dissolved, aud the firm Of John u. Lewis h Co.
was formed. HIS business rosJered, and from his
accumulated gains he specuIated largely ~ real
estate He WIS never married, but kept expensive
bachelor establishment He irequened Demonco's
snd other expensive places OF resort where he evnced
IN ambition excel all others In lavish cxpehdi-
iuro oil money, striving and struggling 10 hinder
very from knowing anything about his early sn
:estry alter his death that which he labored
10 hard 10 conceal has become publicly known--that
no was tho son OF q slave mother, who by the under
ground railroad escaped Cunada, and there
hab,ting with IA white man gave birth to this future
New YUrk merchant The plaintiff In the casc-hs
brothers. a coal black negro, a son OF the same
mother and slave father Virginia. and one Of the
defendants is black woman, child OF tho Same slave
marriage John D. Lewis being unmarried aud with
bcirs.at.law ana under the decision OF Judge
Barrett these Two negroes. slaves, Will
eventually become inc owners OF all this vast
property Judge Barrett decides that the only portion
will which valid Is that which gives TO Mss
Tay ior the income OF the estate during her HE. He
iurncr decides that ON her marriage or DEATH whether
leaving children or not. the entire estate goes to tho
plaintiff and MS black sister Mary smith Tho case ut
Inc time excited considerable Interest, and the testi
mony, which was peculiar was listened to with marked
interest ana Synopsis thereof was published from
tmc to time the HERALD There was large array
Of counsel the plantls being represented by Judge
Dntcnnocier, Cornelius A. Runklc, David Tisdale,
Queens counsel Of Canada; Messrs EDgehart and
Sanger and defendants by Sterling waldron, Bcnja-
MN r. Dunning. ex-Jucge Jones and d. Hewitt
owing 10 the peculiarly complicated features Of the
mso tho opuion OF Judge Barrett Is gwen below IN
nli:-
As It is tho expressed intention OF tho parties to
ke opinion OF the appellate courts in the case Il
sill only be necessary 10 state the conclusions which
have been reached with, very briefly the more prom
l. The will is one OF those remarkable productions,
which not infrcqucnty result from the lnyman's dc.
erminaton to substitute Tor legal knowledge and
professional skill his own "plain common sense" II
10 almost Impossible TO get at the estator's ntcnt
One thing, however, seems TO DC reasonably clear ana
MAT is that be had intention Oh making provi
non for his relatives He appears to have desired
Miss Tayors welfare. He endcavored 10 provide Tor
Der education, Tor her support whiie single, and, IN
tho OF marriage, for her children upon her de-
tease. the question Is how far he has succeeded.
2 Tho remainder OF the estate not specifically de-
vixcd TO the executors trust There words
Dcccssariy implying trust power in trust with
trust power oil man agement Is undoubtedly conferred
10 quote from Denic j., ia Post Hover, 33 N. Y,
sol :"rhc Court ought never imply trust from gen
pra language where the duties committed to the al
leRcQ trustee could be executed under trust power
mud where tho trust estate, II held TO result from tho
language and general dispositions OF the will, would
DO violation OF tho statute" In that aspect OF the
case Mss Taylor took a nero equity but valid
legal estate Unaffected by the nvadity Of any
cessvo estate Of the same quality and duration as her
Cook, IL n. Y, GAL
II, however, the language DO doomed sufficient TO
create estate Miss Taylor's equity Is valid Ii
the purposes OF trust are separablc the lawful may
Dc severed IRON tho unlawful and uphold. Post vs..
Colt vs. Cook Paige, 81; "a wcnd., GAL; Darling
vs. Rogers, % wend., 43s; Savage vs.. durham. II
scbei.er vs.. smith, Il n " $780, Nance vs. Manics,,
g N. Y. 303; Knox VS.. Jones, ~ n. Y, 1881
Amory Lord Sold, 4O3, does not conflict with this
rule There the valid much mixed up with tho
illegal and void shat IL was impossible" said Judge
Taggnrt. Ito sustain he ono without giving effect
she case OF Do Kay VS. Irving, mi sup,
Of which Chief Justice Demo lin Post VS. Hoverl said
There u trust pay the income 10 the tcstators
widow until certain day named and II she should die
before that day It was to be appcd by Tho executors
TO the maintenance oil the testators family The trust
held valid during the lifetime oil The widow but as
after that event its continuance was not made de-
pendent on lives, It was void from and after her
death"
l. Tho direction based upon the contingency OF chill
drcn OF Miss Tayor's marriage Cannot be up
held II leaves gap between her marriage aud death
entirely upprovided for Daring that period what Is
to done with The pcomeS Is TO be disposed Of as
In case Of intestacy such is evidently not tho nton-
children not IN beng, or II In being who may attain
their majority long before their mothers death
rhcn II there DO children upon the mothers death
what 10 done with the estate and its incomes The
will Is silent And II there DO children, what Is TO
be paid " them The ''ntercst pro RATA But what
is that Z Clearly not the interest itself For tho
testator than distinguishes tho rest rest
due and remainder" rom The interest and income"
lump sum pro ratap Or tho future income OF the
estatef But 1t tho latter, for how long Tho will
g. The words until sue Is lawfully married" are
words OF imnatior and do not import condition u
Is not so long she shall remain single" The pro-
vision SIMPLY indicates the period during which che 10
" be The recipient OF his bounty IL is not In restraint
OF marriage, not declaration In terrorem On the
contrary, marriage Is contemplated and to tho extent
Of an attempt to provide for the children oil the mar
risee encouraged
4 The provision with respect TO tho decoration OF
the burial plot 10 void. Other reasons might be as
ugncd but It's ndohn,teness uncertainty and remote
ness sufficient THIS extraordinary design Is TO be
executed only In case Miss Taylor. dying SINGLE shall
happen 10 he Inferred here Tho tostator expresses
such DESIRE but his wishes In that respect cannot DO
enforced Further; who Ia TO cxpend the rest resi-
due remainder OF his estate IN this connection
Aud how aud In what manner IL u 10 DO cxpendedY
For instance is the entire corpus OF the estate amount
Ing, understand, to upward OF 500. 900 10 be OK
pended Mt from time 10 timoY Then what form
ID the decoration 70 takef is he spot at the discretion
perhaps oi the executors, 'to DO encrccd as great
writer once expressed II, with golden baustradc 7"
And 10 tho 'uccoraon' to DO suffered TO run into do
cayf II not Is sum sufficient TO MAINTAIN II 70 be
kept invested? Again the Will ~ silent
l. In conclusion MISS Taylor 10 entitled 10 the in
come until she Ia lawfully married. Upon her marriage
or ucccaso the estate tails 10 tho paintin ana Mary
Rmiih. In tho case lhoy take II freed from what