The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-10-28
MRS. O'HARA'S WEALTH.
JUDGE M'cUE CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY FOR

JUDGE McUE CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY FOR
THE CONTESTANTS OF THE WIDOWS WILL.
The attention of Surrogate Daley. of Kings
county, was occupied yesterday in hearing tes-
timony. Mrs. Lizzie Crafts. former witness. was
recalled behalf of the contestants. Her tes-
timony to the effect that the acts and conversa-
ton of deceased those of an irrational mind.
Mrs. Margaret 'hara wife of John O'Hara. also
recalled She corrected her former testimony. say
ing that the number of times deceased changed her
bed was three or four month instead
of three or four year. Deceased had stated
that portion Of q needle had worked its way from
her knee up into her liver. Hugh OHara. nephew
of Mrs. OHara's husband, testified that he knew de-
ceased paid $4,000 upon mortgage in 1877 De-
ceased said she had made several loans; among
others to Judge McCue of $4,000. for which
took security and another of $4,000 to Bishop
Lynch; witness understood that this loan had been
cancelled; he went with Mrs. OHara to the real
estate Office OF Mr.. Chauncey in 1875 she there
signed a contract for the sale OF her real
estate; witness had deceased under the
influence of liquor and on one occasion
lying insensible the floor; she made will in 1876
and went to the Surrogate's Court, but was absent
from the room during its execution; none OF her
relatives present; she was not present during
the execution OF another will in 1863; she had not
been of very sound mind for several years. she could
write her name. but witness did not believe she could
read writing. Cross-examined-He said he had never
entered into any proposition i'll relation to receiving
$4,000 in the will was broken Ex-Judge AIorris
stated that the proposition was made by witness
counsel.
JUDGE M'cUE CALLED.
Judge Alexander McCue then called on behalf
OF the contestants. He swore that he had known
deceased for long time. and of late years had been
her professional adviser; he had in his possession
will which she made in 1872; deceased herself had
destroyed others which she had made from time to
time.
will which is contested? A. Yes, think she did. in
june. 1875; the will made in November. 1859.
EtrAvH
will of 1875 was probably destroyed; I was
wrong-the will Of 1872 should be 1871; the
codcil attached made in 1872: l found
it among her papers. of which had possessions
had taken out some papers from her box short
time prior to her death py her dlrectons with ref
pshed; in all she made. think. four wills beside
this one beside two or three codicis: tor several
years she kept account with the Trust Company,
and had letter from her to the officers of the
bank. directing them to honor the checks drew for
her, and they considered it sufficient it not
actly power of attorney; i'll of any transact
tons concerning the management Of her property
she always consulted me. so far as / know;
l did not visit her socially, but she probably
considered something more than legal adviser;
did not know OF any loans by her to Father ,
she had made some gifts to st. Pauls Church; it
before this last will; she talked to me about
changes in her will and referred her to Mr. Cullen;
l knew OF the contents OF her will for years:
any special changes. she would talk with me about
them sometimes weeks before
The will Of 1S71-72 was produced in evidence and
CHANGES IN DIFFERENT WILLS.
Judge McCue, continuing. said that there were
many changes between the will OF 1875 and that OF
1876, now contested the will OF 1875 destroyed
1t substantially the same that of 1876 and
1872 with the exception that the personal legacies
were diminished; the general scheme was the
in all the wills; Rev. Father O'Hara
executor under the will of 1876 witness had paper
in his hand which helped him to recollect some
thing about it, it dated 1875 was in witness own
handwriting and related to matters outside. and be-
yond the will. Attached to it was paper dated
1876 which related to Mrs. O'Haras affairs. Witness
uai1 hat I'm mana nnf fnadG QYna
instruction to tho disposition of her estate and
gave some instructions in relation to the residuary
legacy left to the three trustees. When tse papers
were offered in evidence they objected to and
excluded. They were afterward marked for identif-
cation. The Court subsequently examined and adj
mtted them. further hearing Of the will
take place on Friday.