The New York herald., 1878-08-16
THE WOOD ESTATE
Controversy Over the Appointment of
Mr.. Lewis as Receiver.
SURROGATE CALVIN DEFENDED.
The Facts in the Case as Set Forth by
General Burnett.

The appointment by Surrogate Calvin Of Frederick
Lewis, brother OF Alderman Sam ue A. Lewis, 10 the
sion OF collector and receiver OF Samuel
Wood, deceased, who bequeuthcd over 81, 900, 900
for the purpose Of founding institution in this city
TO be known as the Samuel Wood Nusical College, has
given rise TO considerable discussion legal circles
IL held by counsel for the executors and iegatees
that the appointment Irregular, ana al present
all parties concerned anxiousy awaiting the de-
cison OF Justice Daniels in the enaicr of the appca
ion for an injunction restraining Mr.. Lewis from pro-
ceoling TO act as such collector and receiver.
A HERALD representative while IN search OF infor
malion regarding tho fois in the easc, yesterday
called uoon Surrogate Calvin, and having alluded to
article on the subject OF the appotn tmcnt pub
lished IN morning paper few days ago, asked him
he wished TO say anything In reply to the allega-
tt0ns therein contained.
The Surrogate replied folio SIT 10 contrary 10
my CUSTOM and regard it Inconsistent with tho
dignity Of aCourt TO attempt a vindication OF its
judicial conduct the newspapers muon less from
the irresponsible and unprofessonal criticism OF
an attorney. who exhibits tho bad taste Of
IN attempted newspaper revIow after be has
taken appeal from tho alleged irregular order and
which is fair to presume the irregularity any,
will be appropriately corrected All the material al
false referring 70 the proceedings, to which In
vite attention." l
TUE SURROGATE DEFEyDED.
Before leaving the Surrogate's office the writer met
gentleman evidently familiar with the aud who
appeared TO speak by authority, add from him was
obrainod the following statement In reply IA the
charge OF rreguarty made against Surrogate CALVIN
in tho article alluded to:-First the Surrogate declined
issue letters isstamentry because objected by
tho executor, Elmer Second, the Surrogate do.
cined appoint Sim collector and receiver be-
no had mad charge OF the eestato for consdera
period bsore she death the ,estator and would
have account IN respect thereto to himself Third,
the parties invited to ngrse upon . collector
and receiver apd took several weeks for tnnt
purpose and lailod. Fourth, then the Surro-
gate suggested Mr.. s. A. Lewis and Mr. W.
Sd vi Juno, aud he informed tho parties that II they
failed agree upon either OF them hc would appoint
SELECTION On request of the parties. however, the
appOintment was delayed until alter June 10,
that they had not been able 10 agree, but that all
except pr. Elmer had consented ~ Asssra Lloyd;
that ne objected 70 ME- ssaver and also TO Mr. Lewis
because ,he latter was "Hebrew," (" and expressed q
desire for the appointment OF good, tair
business man and not politician. Fiith--The
imp putalion that tho appontmsns was made contrary
to understanding and was q SURPRISE Is pure NO
uon, tor tho Surrogates letter announced his inten
conclusion lie said The doa that party alter
The app ointment could caprciously object and thus
prevent any appointment, is very absurd. He added
known In tho community, and Is not u politician.
INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL BURyKrT.
Tho writer subsequently called upon General Henry
L. Burnett, ono OF me counsel engaged in The case.
General Burnett at rst declined TO OF the matter
on .as s.ouad that he deemed ~ unprolssslonai 20
tnat arc pending before the Judicial tribunals, but
when ais attention was called 10 the article referred
10 consented 10 give resume OF the and state.
msnt OF the facts as he Understood them. Tho follow
ing interview then took piaco:-
RxrcHTxR-General Burnetb presume you have
seen this article published n lew days since In u
morning paper with reicrsuce to the samuel Wood
VIII contest, ana believe you have also had some
connection as counsel win that ma,terf
General bURNKrr--l have seen tho article. Judge
oi Nj. Wood by Dr. Elmer, one OF the executors.
"Docs that article state tho case correctly p"
'some Of the statements contained in \, are erro-
neous" f.t
''wouId you be good enough 10 indicate those that
aro,incorrcctf
to me erroneous IN mis- article win DO to give you
briet history Of the matters therein referred TO.
Mr. Samuel Wood died, leaving a wifi anu ood,ciL
Objections were ntcrposed 10 both will and codic
but subsequently, the objections TO the VIII
Withdrawn, and the contest remained a. TO the
codicil. rne VIII named three persons, Edward
I. Schenck, Alfred l.. Simonson aud Marlin Wood as
cutors This will dated July IL, 1872. Gu the
2Oth March, 1875, Mr. Wood made codcii 10 his wiI
Dy which he revoked the eleventh paragraph OF his
WILL which appointed these persons executors and
appointed instead Abram Hewitt, Alfred L. slmonsoD
Martin Wood and William Elmer as tho executors OF
has WILL and changed the rss,dasry clause of WILL
giving the remainder OF ms estate, after ccrts,l
c trustees for tue purpose of fouhdng the samuel
Wood College oil Music OF the Cisy OF New YORK.
Way Mr.. siMossoS WAS OBJECTED
"Onc oil the executors. Dr. Eliner, who specially
represented TINS res:duary trust, or had It's object
heart was anxious 10 tho codicl pr0bated
and The trust executed. Whsle The codlci was IN
contest the executors and trustees therein named
could not take possession Of the esate, nor
can they II should be ultimately deter.
mined mat the codc,i was valid. The contest
was substantially between the two sets OF
executors and while this contest was pending
counsel Tor Mr. Slmonson applied TO have bim ap-
pointed collector Of tho estate and TO have issued TO
MN special letters OF administration. Tho power TO
appoint collector Is specially conferred upon tho
Surrogate by tho statutes of TINS state THIS appoint
ment Of Simonson was objected TO on tho ground,
galiny or conlcs,ins parties such collector,
as mad been decided BY tho courts OF this
ssan Ssa.emsee y Mov'ry on vs. Hunt ,s ., Braaiofa
eight years previous TO tho death OF Mr.. Wood Mr.
simcnson had nsd lhc exclusive control aud manage
meat VI the estate OF tho deceased, and that MS
(Simouson's) appointment collector and receiver
would prevent any examination OF his acts and dongs
an connection with The estate, and would
DO In effect appointing him tho cxumincr OF
his own accounts. The Surrogate noli1ed all
parties tha, he would appoint any person
whom they (the contracting purties) would agree
upon. Tho parties iaiied 10 ngres and notified The
Surrogate In opcn court. The Surrogate then sug-
eestea Mr. ). A. Lewis and Mr. W. A. seaver as per-
sons whom he would DO wiling 10 appoint II tno con-
testing parties should agree upon either name
We, on our Par', uechhcu 10 mako any REQ
ommsndaton In the matter, simply saying
that preferred II should be iet entirely tho wise
discretion OF the Court, and that so lar wo knew
both gentlemen named were men o high character
ana en,rely 1t 10 n the place We only objected to
tne appointment Of any person who should be sug-
Rcsted BY the other side, ON tho general theory that
any person who would 10 likely 10 DO Dy our
adyorsaries would be person VINO would not be rigid
anu energetic IN ovcfhauing and exam ng the ac-
counts OF tho gentleman who had charge OF the
estate. Finally, after the Surrogate had adjourned
the further bcaring OF the motion several times with
view oil giving tho parties iuii opportunity to agree