The Lake County star. [volume] (Chase, Mich.) 1873-current, 1877-01-11
A Will In Dispute.
New York Times.I

"A case In which some OF ltS utId,is dhu
disclosures read almost like a chapter
from " Uncle Toms Cabin" was brought
to trial before Judge Barrett, in the Su'
preme Court, special term, few days
ago. The proceeding is one in equity
for the construction of the will OF the
late John ID. Lewis, who died over two
years ago in this city, leaving very
large amount of property.
Louis was the son of former slave
woman, a quadroOn, named Sarah Lewis.
The latter's history was very singular,
and as it has an important bearing on the
present suit, some of its detail will be
given.
She was born slave, some time before
the beginning of the present century, on
the plantation of Col. Brown at HOlli-
days. Cove, West Virginia. While a
slave on the plantation, she was married
to negro named Henry Lewis. Their
marriage took place between 1907 and
1909. They lived together for several
years, during which time two children
were born to them. These two are now
known as Henry Lewis and Mary Smith,
respectively, and both are living. Short
ly after the birth of Mary Smith, Mrs.
Lewis and her husband became separated,
and never met again in after lie. Her
husba nd, it appears, had escaped from a
Kentucky plantation, and when his
master came to claim him, he left his
wife and children on Col. Browns plan
tati0n and went off to parts unknown.
Meanwhile, his wife continued to be a
slave on the plantation until Colonel
Browns death, which occurred between
1912 and 1916. After this event, the
mother and her two children were
sold to man named Campbell, who
owned an adjoining plantation. The
continued absence Of her husband dur
ing this period, added to the general lax
notion OF morality existing among the
slaves, proved too much for the wifely
faithfulness of Mrs. Lewis, and she
yielded to temptation. She gave birth
successfully to three illegitimate chill
dren, whose fathers were white men.
About the year 1920 she was again sold
by her master, but she ran away, taking
her children with her. She fed to Can
ada, and supported herself by doing diff
ferent kinds OF work. While in Canada
she gave birth to another illegitimate
child, who was afterwards known as John
ID. Lewis, the testator in the present case,
about whose will and property the pres
ent action is brought. Mrs. Lewis's
other children escaped from their masters
and joined their mother in Canada. The
three illegitimate children born in Vir-
ginia have since died. Mrs. Lewis died
in 1922.
John ID. Lewis, the testator, was boru
in 1912 or 1914, and came to this city
between 1910 and 1850. After serving
for number of years as clerk in stores,
he went into business on his own account,
and became wealthy. He died in this
city on September 2l, 1874, in conse-
quence of injuries received in an acci-
dent in Central Park. His estate is val
ued at over 100000. He never married,
but it is said has an illegitimate daughter
named Lizzie Barton Taylor, who figures
prominently in the present legal pro-
ceedings. The action is brought by
Henry Lewis, the legitimate son of Sarah
Lewis, for himself and his sister, Mary
Smith, against the executors and lega-
tees of John ID. Lewis, to set aside the
will of the latter as to the bulk of his
estate. John ID. Lewis left will in
which, after the giving of specific lega-
cies to the amount of $27 900, he says:
All the rest and residue and remainder
OF my estate direct to be invested by my
executors, and the interest and income
thereof to be paid by them to Lizzie Barton
Taylor, until she is lawfully married, and
should she have children at her death, the
interest / direct to be paid in a pro rata
share to her children. In the event of Liz
zie Barton Taylor dying before she is law.
fully-married, l desire her inferred in my
plot in Greenwood. / then desire the rest;
residue, and remainder of my estate shall
be expended in the decoration of the plot
where we are buried.
The plaintiff, Henry Lewis, claims that
the will is invalid and void as to the
portions quoted above, because, accord
ing to the provisions there recited, the
power of alienation Of the property is
suspended for longer period than is per-
mitted and prescribed by the law. He
also claims that on its face the will is un-
certain, indefinite, vague, and ambigu-
Gus, and, as he believes, impossible of ex-
ecution. He askes that the Court decide
the will to be invalid as regards the resid-
uary estate, and that this property be
decreed to belong to him and his sister,
Mary Smith. Judge Barrett reserved
his decision in the case.