New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-09-02
A FIEND FOR 4 HUSBAND.
DIR. FREDERICK HALLS CRUEL TREATMENT OF HIS

DR. FREDERICK HALLS CRUEL TREATMENT OF HIS
wIFE-HER Will IN HIS FAVOR sET ASIDE.
One of the most extraordinary will contests that
has appeared in the SuIrogates Court during NE
past wear was that of Mrs. Mary u. han, the VIE
of Dr. Frederick Hall. which was concluded yes
ter,lav Inv n decision of Surrogate Calvin refusing
to admit The will to probate. ! he principal ground
of the contest was the undue influence OF the nus
band, to whom most of the property was leit Nv
the WILL Mrs. Hall. according to the evidence was
feeble in mind and body, who had come INTO pos
session of fortune of more than SlOOQoO before
she met DR.. Hall. A few days after they maze
each Others acquaintance Ill Connecticut, he per
shaded her to marry him, although he was at that
fine engaged to be married TO another woman.
Then if the testimony for tne contestants is 10 De
belle we'd. DR.. Hall began almost immediately upon
his marriage course OF cruel treatment toward
his wife. Several witnesses testified that they
had seen DR.. Hall strike his wife in the cheek
with hammer for no apparent cause ana Only
laughed when protest was made 10y hNstaudeIs;
that he would throw at her various household anu
ccS; that lie would expose her III the bathroom or
he'd TO stran ers that he would throw hot grddle
cakes in her face and force them burning hot down
her throat. lie would dash plate OF soup over
ncT al the table If angry, would use insulting
language TO her, would brighten her until she was
half scnseeSS would drag her over the MOOR regard
less OF her screams and cries one thing 'nat APP
pearcd TO afford great aInuSe ntn' 10 MN WIS 10
take his dccate wife by tine heels ana drag her
down stairs. humping her body at every sep.
The husband took her money and allowed her
none. and even p1wned her diamonds ana other
jewery. As the result IN part OF thls treatment, uS
the contestants claimed. MIS- Hall was seized with
"a
tion of his wife did not seem TO soften hc treatment
of the husband. 1t was subsequent to tins stroke
that the will was signed. One of tae doctors tes-
titled that the husband SAID that II ne c0uil Keep
his wife alive until 1850 he would be ID well
fixed " One of the witnesses was Mrs Avchna B
Hall. who was divorced from Dr. Hall before he
married the decedcnt and vino married him again
after her death. Before she went on lhe stand,
however. she Lad again been divorced nom hm.
She testified TO acknowledgements hy Dr. liall thal
the dccedcnts mind was shattered when she signed
the will, and that he dictated great part OF It,
The troubles of Mrs Hall were increased by heI
fears Of her mOther-in-aw, who ana not appear III
the evidence III much more favorable lgnt IMAM
The Surrogate thinks that the testatOr had suGi-
cieut intelligence TO make the will, but that 1T was
procWed by the husbands undue influences. The
testimony of DR.. Hall was disregarded " Tor, ASIDE
from the testimony of the witnesses called upon
10 mpeach his general character, lie Is dlScrcdltcd
10y his unseemly. dsreputable, ana scandaIouS con
duet. when with hot haste lie procured VIII to he
drawn and pIctendedly executed 10y his wife lew
hours after her alarming attack when she was 0b-
viOusly in seml-cO nlatose state lie II hIs'
shown TO have MARI ed his wife undT very extra
ordinary circumstances, and TO have stated day
or two after rs the reason he took decedcnt instead
of another young lady TO whom he was then ell
gagged that there was more money III IT,.
me facts which the Surrogate enumerates as.
initiating against the unrestrained execution OF
the will are: FIRST. the apparent Indifference OF
the husband to his wife: the 'erlnS OF the WILL
which gives TO him the principal part OF the estate,
and to his mother $4,000 within a few months OF
Their extraordinary court ship and marriage; the
preuaratiOn and execution of the Will on the night
of the apoplectic attack of different characte r
from that which knOwn to nave been prepared
for execution at time when there was an obvious
indecency in the effort 10 procure lis execution
that the decedent was OF weak intellect ana
her mind considerably affected by the paralytlo
stroke"
at is clear IN this case" the Surrogate con,
cludes that DR. Hall had the opportunity and
interest to procure Che execution OF tins lnstru-
ment and his conduct TO Mrs. Hall shows quite
clearly that he had the disposition to do 50, and IT
is also clear that the decide It, when she executed
the instrument, was under the control and power
of her husband and substantially dependent upon
MIN in consequence of her iniirniy and that under
these circumstances there was such suspicion sur
rounding the transaction as required full and com
plete explanation | am of the opinion that the
attempted explanation has hot sufficiently over
come the suspicion" Tho contestants we're the
deredent's brothers and sisters. Arson Maltby and
Waldo Hutchins represented the contestants; A.
ii. Wagner the prepayment.