Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1880-03-20
THE LEWIS WILL CASE.
An Accurate Account of the Famous
Conspiracy.

millionaire OF Hoboken, to the United States,
were placed at the bar for sentence this morn
ing They were six in an VIZ the P reatena aed
was used as witness on the part OF the govern
ment, and DR.. Andrew j. Park, Marcus I. Sacla,
George r. Bradford, Frank Allison ana henry
T. Bassford whose trial began on the 9th OF
February and closed on the 10th OF March, with
q verdict against all, Bradford being recon-
meaded to the mercy 81 the eoq fo Ine court
prisenment and to pay fine OF $4,000 EACH;
Bradford and Bassford to one years imprison-
nent and to pay fine of 81 900 each. Parks
From the 1--WE volumes of closely printed tes-
timony covering three thousand pages, taken
courts the following authentic account of the
origin and progress OF this remarkable con-
spifacy has been obtained:
Joseph l. Lewis, man Of about SIS years, died
In HObOken on March 5, 1871 leaving an eS-
tate OF more than a million of dollars con-
tained In his box kept In the vaults Of the Man.
haitian Company. In the charge of his friend
eept small house in which he lived at Hoboken
worth about five thousand dollars. He had
come to this country at an early age from
city, where he had accumulated his fortune, and
was not known to have any kindred or connec-
lions whatever at the time OF his deeease. He
M s and Nj oS Mne Wo ne az rs1
friends, as bis executors, and, after making q
few small legacies, he devised the whole of his
estate to them in trust to apply it to the reduc
ton OF the national debt incurred In the war of
the rebellion, and especially enjoined them to
see that his wishes were carried out faithfully.
Within rev days after his death 1t was an
nounced that he had left a widow, to whom he
had been married In 1855, and on the 18th OF
March, 1877, a caveat was filed in the Orphans
Court OF Hudson county, N. j., by Jane Lewis,
through Charles H. Winfield, her attorney, al
leg1ng herself to be his widow. caveaG was
also flled on behalf of John Cathcart, who al
legged himself to be nephew OF Lewis, and sub
sequently claim was. made by one Thomas
Lewis, who alleged himself to be his son. The
will was presented by the executors to the
Chancellor, sitting as ordinary In the Prerogative
Court for probate on the 3lst of March, 1877, and
In view OF the caveats filed the court appointed
Mr.. Wolf, one Of the executors, administrator,
penderlte lite, and directed that the box contain
ing the estate should be brought from New York
and placed under the control of the court in the
Newark Savings Institution, which was done.
Mr.. Wolf took charge Of the collection Of the
interest and the management OF the securities
under the direction OF the court, and an order
was made directing testimony to be taken before
Cornelius S. See, master and examiner in
chancery, at Jersey City. Mr.. John P. Stock
ton, attorney general OF New Jersey, appeared
for the state. Mr.. X. W. Russell for the alleged
nephews, and Mr.. P. Ii. Gilhooley for Thomas
Lewis, the alleged son.
On the 18th OF May following, the alleged
widow, through Mr.. Winfield, applied to The
Orphans Court to set off dover in the real
estate. This application was opposed by Mr..
Robert Gilchrist, counsel for the executors, and
Dy 0llteQ states DlSUf1cG Attorney h6dSDey,
who had been directed by the Attorney General
to represent the interests OF the government in
the matter, and to see that the rights OF the
United States under the Will were protected.
The application was refused. The testimony
was begun before Mr.. See in Jersey City on the
18th of September, 1871, Mr.. Gilchrist appearing
for the executors, ext Chancellor Williamson for
John Cathcart, the alleged nephew, Mr.. Win
field for the alleged widow, and Mr.. Keasbey on
behalf OF the government
The will was proved by the witnesses and on
the Sd october the case on the part of the eXecu-
tors were closed, and after some un1mportant
testimony on behalf Of the contestants they re-
Sumed on the 18th of october, when the mar
rage certificate was produced by Mr.. Winfield.
George r. Bradford one OF the witnesses teSti-
fled that he had been present at the marriage OF
Lewis with Jane Hastings on November Is, 1858,
and had signed the certificate made by Ethridge
II. Fish, justice of the peace at Hoboken, as
witness. Elisha l. Caldwell, a lawyer of New
York city, testified that he had taken proceed
1ngs for divorce on behalf Of Mrs. Lewis
settled by agreement by the parties in his Office.
Two other witnesses were examined on that
day to prove that they had known the parties
as husband and wife and on the same day Mrs;
testified to her marriage by Fish on the 18th of
November, 1855, at the house OF Mr. Lewis at
H0boken. She was subjected to long exami-
nation. occupying about one hundred and sew
enty-fiSe printed pages, and taking until De-
cember l, 1871.
Mrs Lewis supported her story with wonder
iul Sklll-utSCElUtu Ill LEWIS uUuSe lOT
several months, and all the particulars of her
subsequent career, including constant visits
from her husband in New York and various
s Sas % h
various circumstances under which her inter-
course with him had been carried on.
About this time Special Agent H. NJ. Burnett
OF Newark, of the Secret Service Division, WHO
had been engaged In general service In New
jersey under the direction Of District Attorney
Keasbey, was specially authorized to devote
himself to the Lewis will case. He did so with
great zeal and efficiency, attending all the eX.
aminations and reporting daily to the District
Attorney. Through his efforts much of the evil
dence was prepared which afterward exposed the
tors. At the close OF Mrs. LewS'S examination
number Of women were examined at very great
length on her behalf They testified that they
had known her as Mrs. Lewis; that they had
seen her husband visit her In New York, and
they went into the minutest details of her life.
Frances Helen Peabody, one OF the defendants
known Mrs. Lewis before she was married,
and had also been acquainted with her after
her marriage and had known her as Mrs Lewis.
Henry T. Bassford, another OF the defendants,
also testified that he had known Mrs. Lewis In
1855, before her marriage, as Jane Hastings, and
had seen her while the old man Lewis was
''courting" her In New York, and had met them
both after they were married At this point it
was earnestly insisted On behalf Of the govern
ment and OF the executors, who were certain
from the first that the claim OF the alleged
Wl0cW was a SiOoo lDdt tICy Siluuiu NC
allowed totntervene and offer other proofs. Ap-
pl1cat1On In fact was made TO the chancellor
for that purpose, but on the 3lsL OF August 1t
was agreed by all parties that the testimony on
behalf OF the executors should begin On Septem-
Der 10th, leaving the contestants to proceed
with their testimony subsequently.
Long before this point was reached it mad
been distinctly aScertained by the executors,
with the aid OF the chief OF the engraving de-
parment OF the Treasury, that the alleged mar
rtage certificate was plain forgery upon a
blank taken from plate which, although exist
ing In 1883, had been materially altered In 1862.
and that the impression used for the forged
certificate was recent one taken from The
plate after these important alterations had been
made. The evidence on this subject had been
thoroughly worked up by Mr.. Gilchrist and the
district attorney with the aid OF Mr.. CaSllear OF
the engraving department OF the Treasury, and
they were thoroughly prepared to prove the
facts as soon as an opportunity should be
offered by the closing OF the testimony on the
part OF the contestants. The consent above
mentioned afforded them the opportunity, and
they proceeded at once to present their proof.
They examined John II. Kirk, the engraver,
who was perfectly familiar with the plate and its
alterations, and John c. Buttre, Peter j. Smith
and several other witnesses, by whom it was
shown In the most conclusive manner that the
marriage certificate produced on the part OF the
alleged widow was procured from plate which
was not In existence In that shape until after
the year 1869. This testimony consists OF 400
printed page and was continued until october
10, 1873.
1t was supposed that this conclusive proof of
the forgery OF the plate would put an end to the
claims OF the alleged widow, but about this time