National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-08-08
MRS, wILLIAMs's WILL.
A Contest Between Her Daughters Which Will
Probably Eat I'm the Property

At no time in tho history Of the orpha MS
court has there been shown such a general
disposition as now to break wills and divert
the requests and lcgacies from the channel
into which dccedents directed they should go.
The preliminary steps for contests have
already been taken in number OF cases.
different causes are assigned for the contest
ing, but usually there are two points raised
undue influence and unsound mind The
latest case over which hot and stubborn con-
test Is likely to be made Is that of the Williams
estate. According to the statements OF either
contestant the amount involved Is insignih-
cant and likely to be entirely eaten up by the
expenses of litigation. The Williams family
atlnirs appear to have been much mixed,
Mrs. Lucinda Williams, over whose, VIII
the fight Is made, after the death OF her
first husband, by whom she had two daugh-
tiers, Caroline Mason and Mary A. X. McCarty
married her first husbands brother, William
Williams. The lnst.namcd daughter first mar,
ried IMAM named Russell, by whom she md
two children. and after his death married
MCCarty. by whom she had two more chill
dren. When William Williams died he let
about 81 800 in property to his widow, giving
her power TO dispose of II ms she might deem
proper. II there was any remaining at her
death 1t was TO go to Caroline Mason. The
picture storegon + street. Mrs. williams sold
ont and used the proceeds and also sold, ~ IL
claimed, some of the household goods to Mrs
McCarty. There does not seem to have been
smooth run of domestic harmony in the three
families, and differences arose and cstrange..
Inent followed. At tho time of tho purported
sale of the household goods Mrs. Mason resided
IN the house. subsequently Mr.. McCarty
| died, and n disagreement having. sprung
up between Mrs Mason and Mrs;
Williams the former LETT the house; and
family in. During the existence of this state
of affairs Mrs. Williams died. Mrs. Mason
then petitiOncd for letters debonis non with
| will annexed on the estate of William Will
| iuut "a nd fundamentally her hngbnn1. Mr.. w.
G. Mason, pctitloned for letters on the estate oil
Lucinda Williams. The petitions were an
| swerCd by Mrs. MCCarty, In opposition to their
being granted, and she In turn applied that
! letters might issue to her. Judge lIagner,
| upon the hearing, dismissed both the petitions
of the MaSonS last week. Mrs. Mason then
came back and renewed the contest by apply
ing for letters on the estate OF Mrs; williams,
for which the application of Mrs. McCarty Is
! still pending.
The petition of Mrs Mason declared that
| Mrs. Williams died possessed of certain furni-
! turc clothes, jewels and Judgment against
Mrs. McCarty for 500, and the personally
was worth about 500, with an Indebtedness
against the estate Of about. 500. she also
charged her sister with exercising undue IN
iluence over the Deceased. Mrs Belva a.
| lockwood, who was the attorney for Mrs.
! Williams during her lifetime and drew her
| will appeared for Mrs McCarty and yesterday
filed an answer to the petition Of Mrs; Mason
In reply to the paragraph in which Mrs.
Mason says that she is n citizen of this dis
trict, Mrs. McCarty says that she. is unable to
! see how that is possible as her husband,
| Mr.. Mason, who Is clerk in the pen
| sion office, votes at indianapolis, Ind.
Mrs. McCarty AYERS that Mrs. Williams dis
| posed of all her household goods, clothing,
| jewclry, and moneys during her lifetime, eX-
| cepting the sum of sl2j, which Is now in bank.
| She denies that the deceased ever held judg
ment against her for $500, and challenges the
! production of the record to show 1t. She also
denies the alleged Indebtedness to August
Burgdorf, and files his receipt to show that the
charge is untrue, and says that Mr.. Burgdorf
Informed her that his statement was made
under n Misrepresentation of the facts. She
denies that Mrs. Williams left 5000, or hall
that sum, and she does not believe that
more than 500 at the best was leit
from the estate, and If the expenses of the liti-
| CATION are to be taken from that then there
| will not be sufficient left to pay the under
taker. Mrs. McCarty further states that she
attended the deceased the last month OF her
life, understood all of her business affairs, was
| intrlstcd with their management and earn
| Cstly entrcatcd by the decedcnt to settle up
| the same after her death. She denies that
| Mrs. Williams was indebted in any sum, ex-
| cept for the last two visits of her physician,
and asserts that no obligation can validity
come against the estate, except the under.
! takers bill, even her rent being paid to point
! beyond the time of her death. She also de-
MES that there was any undue influence by
her over the deceased, or that she acted other
wise than of her own free will.