New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-04-28
IHE COURIS.
MR.. YATES's WISHES TO BE CARRIED OUT.
THE SURROGATE DECIDES THAT HIS WILL WAS


k
THE SURROGATE DECIDES THAT HIS WILL WAS
PROPERLY EXECUTED.
Surrogate Rollins yesterday handed down a
decision in which he admits probate the will of the
late Aopzo c. Yates. Mr. Yates wealthy clothier
OF syracuse in this state lie also had large concern
iu Philadelphia. After being dIyorced from his rst wife
he married cook. In will executed few months
before the contested WILL Mr. Yates left $4,000 to each
OF bls daughters by his first wife, aud the interest
$50 OOO Under present will the daughters take only
the interest on $4,000 each Mr.. Yates died in 1880.
leaving valued at more than 100000. by his
Will ne gave bulk OF his estate his second wife and
her two children. The probate Of the will contested
by his daughters, by his hrs wife, Mrs. Dicke AM Mrs
Hogan grounds that IL was aforged instrument,
aud that not forgedts execution obtained by the
fraud OF MT Yatess attorney, John H. strahan, at
ast under the undue influence OF the esatOrs second
wife aud others.
The Surrogate says Mr.. Yatess testamentary
pacty may be considered perfectly established The
surrogate after a careful review OF the testimony IA 10
the genuneness of the signature. which 400
ulges finds that genuine There nothing the
evidence which tended in the least degree shake his
confidence In It's genuineness and there besides the
positive testimony of two witnesses who Mr. Yates
execute the will The Surrogate had been urged TO dis
credit the testimony OF these witnesses Mr. sra
ham, but attempt had been made dscredt the other
witness. In regard the assertion the part OF the
that Mr. Yates ignorant OF the contents
OF the document signed by him. II he signed 1t at all the
Surrogate finds that there evidence TO support the
assertion and that there Is much evidence against IT,
Moreover, Mr.. Yates man In good health.
IN the full possession OF all his faculties,
and was accustomed business transactions IL must
be inferred Surrogate thought he did
not sign any document, his will, about which he
at all IN the dark Besides all this the will in Mr..
Yaes possession for two years, and found among
his papers after his death. IL would hardly be possible
that person would dare draw up will for csnt
contrary to bis Instructions and then deliver 1t HIM
to Inspect at his the fact that the instrument
was not drawn up In very tidy manner did no. afford
the argument for the assertion OF the contestants
was absurd TO suppose that Mr. Yates could have
even glanced the will without percevinR that the be-
quests his Oldest daughters mad been changed from
| those IN his former will.
regard the final objection to the probate OF the
| will that IT embodies the sentiments not OF
Mr.. Yates but OF his second wife and
| other unknown persons. the Surrogate says that
there Ia evidence to that Mrs Yates exerted
any nnuence, lawful unlawful, upon Mr.. Yates, In
regard IT, 1t true that Mr.. Yates in posi-
ton to influence the testatOr, and tnat In the will
muniicent provision Is made for her, while the prov
unjust but these considerations alone could no
authorize tue Court undo what tue testator had
chosen do. testat0r Of sound mind who observes
necessary formaies in making his will, might IN
dulee sentiment, whm or passion when happened
To influence hun. In legal sense, the claim OF undue
| daIion. Mr. Yates may have been, and perhaps was,
animated by very gnoDe sentiments In cutting down
tine requests to his daughters; but tho Will salts
factory to hun, IL must DO 10 the Court