New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-02-27
THE WILL OF HENRY CROSSuAN
PECULIAR LEGAL COMPLICATIONS BEFORE THE
KINGS COUNTY SURROGATE.

PECULIAR LEGAL COMPLICATIONS BEFORE THE
KINGS COUNTY SURROGATE.
Henry Crossman, wealthy resident of
Brookiyn died In that city January T. 1881. leaving
a widow children At one time he was extern
svey engaged umbrella business in this city,
he retired active business about twenty years be-
fore he died He left estate OF about 100000 BY
his will he gave bulk OF his property adopted
son. Henry c. Crossman. but made liberal provision for
the support of his widow during her lifetime. The will
was admitted probate January 2s 1881. without
opposition from heirs In the early part of January
1882 ak OF Mr. Crossman's nephews and neces nled al
legations ginst the validity OF the Will charging want
of tesamenlary capacity aud that the will obtained
by undue influence. The trial begun before
Surrogate Livingston, in May 1882. The sub
soriDing witnesses the will Richard
H. Bovine and George W. Zener, q clerk In
his Office Mr.. Bovine died before the trial came
on Durlne the animation Of Mr.. Zeper curious
legal questions The attestaon clause OF the VIII
signed by the subscribing witnesses Zeuer and
Bovine stated that the with signed and executed by
the adopted son. tho chief beneficiary named in it Mr.
Zener testified that he, Mr.. Bovine ana the decedent,
were in the alone when the will executed
Objection made by the counsel for the contestants
that the atesatton showed chat the will was not
executed by deceden and therefore that the probate
should be aside The Surrogate oyerruled the
objection and permitted the proponents to prove what
occurred at the execution OF the will without
regard 20 the attestatOn clause. Then a much
worse legal complication caused by the fact brought
out the xamnation OF Mp zener that at
time the paper offered for probate executed. another
paper alleged to be duplicate Will executed Henry
l.. Cuton and ~ III. Clement, appeared the CON
testans moved to annu and vacate the probate the
ground that the papers constituted Instrument
aud that both should be offered for probate the
time. ii. W. BOOlstaver and James r. Steers the
sci for the proponents, opposed the motl0n and con-
tended that 10 was sufficient to prove one oil the dup
Gates Surrogate Livingston after taking four mOts 10
consider the matter denied the notion Another motion
the probate of Will made before Surrogate
Bergen few weeks WIS also denied
Tue contest trial before Surrogate Bergen yes
teray Two called Ia benaf OF the con-
testants hOesed that the time when the VIII was
admitted probate Eugene smith appeared AZ attorney
TO the execution or the WILL after which he
asked them thing done besides the execution
OF the paper offered, and they said no. Mr.. Clino
stated that the object OF this testimony to show that
execution OF another testanentary WAS
cealed from the contestants until brought out the
amnation OF Mr. Zsner The clerk OF the Surrogate's
Court testified in behalf of the TPOp0lsns that Will
was in the same condition when it offered for
probate.
the contestants. declined 10 produce the evidence on the
subject Of ant or testementary capacity and undue In
uence at this stage OF the ease, stating that the
test ants desired first the legal qe sttons In re-
grd proving the two papers decided By the Supreme
Court Mr. Bookstnyer moved that the con-
tcstauts De then required 10 put la
their evidence ON the subject " undue influence.
The contestants COUNSEL Declined do and Mr. elm
ton said THAT unless the Court granted adourauenU
they would take appeal at Supreme
Mr. B0Okstayer moved for decree affirming che pro-
bare, and the motion granted Mr. Cntohl said that
appeal would be taken Supreme Court.