The New York herald., 1879-03-20
Surrogate Calvin SuStainS the Will Of
the Railroad King.
POINTS OF THE DECISION.
No Appreciable Mental Enfeeblement or Cause
for Revocation Proven
FAMILY EXPOSURES REBUKED

Vanderbilt will case his opinion being almost long
snough to fill an ordinary sized volume. Much
,pace is given to recital of the testimony in the
case. all of which has already appeared in the
HERALD and after the abstract OF the testimony the
Surrogate proceeds to consider the cas and decides
that there never existed pyimo ace cause for
the revocation of the probate of the when
the contestants rested The following is careful
summary of the opinion and the hesds under which
the case was consdered:-
ApsrRAcr'oy THE OPINION.
Firsi-Evidcncc tending TO show unsoundncss OF
enfceblcment OF dece3ents mind at tha time of the
execution of the will and codic as indicated by his
physical ailments revealed by the autopsy and the
contestants expert testimony
Second-The counter proof by the proponents ex-
Thiy,i-The alleged impairment Of dccedent's mind.
as evidenced by his alleged weak and irrational con-
versation, rcpctions declarations and conduct and
so-called monomania for wealth and fame.
F0urfh-The testimony tending TO show the de-
cedents uniform nationality, intelligence and &C.
hercnce. in conversations. in business Transitions
and general conduct.
F!tth-The alleged fraud perpetrated by William
H. Vanderbilt upon his father respecting the pre-
tended communications from the spirit OF his de-
ceased wife, to the terms of his WILL in compile.
ity with Mr. and Mrs. Stoddard and Mrs. Stone, and
the alleged execution OF the will under the direction
of such supposed spiritual interference.
Sixih-The answer thereto. to be derived from the
lmprobabiiy Of the story, and the character and
tecedents Of the witnesses; its contradiction by
william H. Vanderbilt. the cohcrant and methodi-
SerenM-The alleged undue influence of William
H., practiced upon decedent. dominating his will.
.EtghM.-The prior declarations of decede1t rs to
his testamentary intentions, both against and in
harmony with the provisions Of the will propoundcd
and the concurring estamentary purpose as evinced
in the several anteccdent wills executed.
COULD THE WILL DE SUCCESSFULLY AssAILED?
This case, the Surrogate proceeds to say has ex-
cited an extraordinary interest in the public mind,
well in the profession, not so much be-
cause of the magnitude of the pecuniary interests
involved, which, however, are such as rarely, il
hav
termine, but because there is deep solicitude
the part Of all classes to know whether the
will of such u man as the decedent was believed to
have been could be successfully assailed; in short.
whetherany will could be made which would sue
ccssfuy resist the assaults of dissatisfied heirs and
next of kin. And the inquiry has been in the minds
and hearts of many people whether any one could
pe snr and
tanned by the In TACT the right make any
testamentary dspostion has been felt TO be trial
THE AUTOPSY AND MENTAL ENFEEBIEMENr.
The autopsy reveals the fac. that the decedent
afflicted with several diseases Of chronic and pain
ful character which most of the medical experts on
both sides agree had tendency to affect the mind,
and which Drs: Vanderwcyde and Dixon claim under
the facts stated in the autopsy would inevitably pro-
duce unsoundness of mina. But those two witnesses
on their cross-examinatlon greatly weakened the
force Of their testimony. for they expressed the
opinion that the statement of the decedent. ac
cordng to the fact that he the railroad king OF
William H.. would be after nm, indicated insanity;
and that physician standing at the head OF his
profession, who should say that he stood at the
head, would, in their opinion. be of unsOund mind,
were mentally nsounad-testimony which seems to
mental unsoundness is SO prsponderating over the
sane does raise such apresnmpton Of trration-
slity the OF all medical experts to require
Affirmative proof to overcome that prespmption, and
whether the testimony OF those two experts has in
any degree overcome it, Two of the most celebrated.
experienced and capable experts. Doctors Gray and
Van Buren, testified that there is nothing in the
autopsy to suggest arrangement cnfeeblc-
Guiding an examination of the brain. in their
opinion. affords basis Of Judgment re-
specting the mental condition OF the patient es-
pecially year and half before his decease The
statements of the autopsy and the expert deductions
from them have seemed to be of very little signin
cance, because they could never rise higher than q
mere suggestion Of o probable enfecblement Of
mind. and. however strong tho proof Of that
probability they could outweigh or over
come the.testimony OF competent observer of
the appearance conversations, conduct and mental
in his domestic, social and business relations for il
there had existed any mental enfeeblement
soundness such an observer would most certainly
have noticed it,
AND vAeIILArISG COMMODORE.
The facts which the contestant claims show the
rial mental impairment. independent OF the autopsy.
that he was ambitious. excitable, violent ard
irritable; that his memory memory failed HIM that in
affirmed. the duty Of an equal distribu-
tion Of property among children. aftcrward
that after he conceived the idea under which his will
was finally executed his mind still yacillaed as TO
tho distribution Of his estate. which continued to
few months before he made his will, by which he
gave to his daughters comparatively trifing por-
ton of his estate. and ract ctically disiniierited
lated testamentary promises, of them to lineal
descendnnts that after he made the will he affirmed
that he could not make different will if he made
hundred that for years before he made the will lie
entertained toward his daughters sentiments OF
PRIDE esteem and affection and afterward. without
reason cmanating from them, pronounced them
worthless; that he affirmed and entertained for his
son William II. an opinion that he was unworthy
and incompetent, and applied to him opprobrious
epithets-drawing comparison favorable to his
younger sons, only one OF whom survives; that he
selected his son William, II. to continue his fame
and wealth: that at times he applied to him similar
. epithets. and at others spoke of him in terms of
lavish afiection-clanng that, among hts children,
he was the only source of pride; that he affirmed
that the Central Railroad would itself for years
and that his son William II. had moro railroad Gu
pacity than he had; that the Central road was the
greatest in the country, and that he was himself
ruilroad King and that his eon william would bc
sitter him; that he had an absorbing desire for
wealth; was inconsistent. crcduous suspicious and
receptive of accusations against othcrs bold cnier
prisng talkative repetitous and boas;ful but reti
cent and able when engaged i'll railroad business:
vain, ostentatous and ambitious, and contemplated
monument more than ono hundred feet higher
than any known monument or pyramid; that lie be-
iicved he received communications as TO his dis
eases business affairs and the terms OF his will from
the dead-nakinR such will In substantial accord
sncc with such communications.
BISHOPS TESTIMONY
The only proof upon the subject of tho dcccdcnt's
foDg memory was tnat on scverhl OCCASIONS he
said that his memory failing. In respect the
charge that the decedent affirmed the duty OF
equal distribution of property. ii is proper
70 remark that most of the testimony that is
given by the contestant upon that subject, except
that of Mrs. Bishop. was given by comparative
70 angers TO the decedcnt. The testimony of Mrs.
bishop upon this subject. when taken in connection
with her declaration that the de sedent expressed
Affection. fondness aud preference for his Cor
pelus j., and that she volunteered to become
witness. claiming to be impelled thereto by
the desire to prevent the robbing of the
mi md an
condemned legislators tor making laws emitting
person to make such disposition of his prop
crty as seemed TO him proper. and character, zcd
judges as unjust who did not violate their official
obligations by disregardng such laws; aud the
eager efforts on the part OF the witness to give her
testimony in defiance of objections and rulings, to-
gethcr with the fact claimed to have been established
IN this case by contestants counsel that tho dccc-
dent had entertained lifelong unnatural and nm
just prejudice against his Cornelius and also
fact that when she, and numerous of the other wit
ncsscs. testified that the deeecnt approved of and