The New York herald., 1877-07-10
MARY M. DANCERS WILL CASE.

iurther hearing was given yesterday before Sur
!ogate Calvin in the Mary NJ. Dancer will Messrs.
W, O. and Clifford A. II. Bartlett appeared to file OBJ
iectlons to the bequcsts this will to various char
tablc and religious associations amounting IN the ag
greeatc TO about $685., 600 Mr. Dyett, who appeared
for the executors addressed the Court urging the
ccpsion OF the will to probate at and hearing
the objections afterward. The Surrogate said
that he had determined that he had Juris-
dction to pass upon the validity OF the
WILL and that entirely within the disposition OF
the Court to admit the will TO probate suspend
the decree. lie should therefore deny the probate
until this question was settled. MIR. Dycott then took
a series OF objections and had them placed on the
minutes He then said that instead OF receiving these
objections at the time promised by the counsel the
contestants, July q he had not received them until
that morning (Monday), and he bad not had time
examine them, ana asked Tor postponemcnt.
The Surrogate said that though II was "a
printed document, containing thirtytwo objections
there only twelve that would demand considera-
lion by counsel II was admitted, he presumed, that
The Will not made and executed at least two months
before the death OF Miss Danscr required by
tion q, chapter $40 OF the laws Of 1s4s. Mr. Dyeott
said they admitted that but that the only applied
wnen husband vile, parent child loft and did
not apply IN this case.
After further discussion It was decided to adjourn
the the 19sh OF July, for the purpose OF intro
ducing testimony on behalf OF tho contestant and
for argument
TIE CALENDER DIVORCE SUIT.
II will be remembered that the suit of William L.
Calender against Sarah j. Calender was brought by
The husband against tho wife for the ground
sf adultery in which the plaintiff sought to troduce
! written confession which the wife had signed aud
sworn to- The wife thercupoL brought another
ton against the husband TO restrain the use Of the
written confession on the ground that 1t had been
obtained by promises which made 1t nequitable thas
he should be allowed to against her as evidence
in divorce suit In this latter action preliminary
injunction was granted restraining the husband
IRON using the confession evidence.
motion to vacate this Injunction
argued before Judge Lawrence, but has yet been
decided, the Judge being absent IN Europe In the
meantime the husband demurred TO the wiies COM
plaint the ground that The action
and unauthorized The SUIT without precedent
and excited much interest among lawyers, but the de-
murrer finally overruled by Judge Van BrunL and
IL appeared that the confession shut out unless
the decision should be reversed on appeal At the last
meeting OF the reference the divorce case before
George W. Parsons, referee, Colonel George W. Win.
gate tho plaintiffs attorney, called as witness the
StenoRrapher TO whom the concession was made in
tho nrst instance verbally, and VINO
tne paper which was finally signed. for
The purpose OF proving by him what tue de-
tcndant SAID respecting the document ITSELF
The use OF which enJoned. Judge W. Fullerton
defendants counsel objected strongly TO this proof on
tho ground the writing was the bcs evidence and
must be produced. Mr.. Parsons, after full consdca-
top overrulcd the objection the ground that this
was no, n case in which that rule applied and on the
further ground that the written confession
Of the verbal statements made by the do
endant and permitted the stenographer TO testify
ali that the defendant said The Injunction therefore
ceases TO be OF any practical value.
SUIT BY A FIREMAN'S WIDOW.
william Hudson WAS formerly assistant foreman
II one OF the fire engine companies Of this city. In
yovemper 1874 he was discharged by the Fire Com
sston ers for conduct preud icIal to good order.