The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1885-08-14

it would help the case along any, he
would show il TO be forgery.
Theodore +. Creig was sworn aud
testified that shortly after the death OF
Beckwith S. Brockway, Daniel f. Sey-
bert came to him and asked if he had
any signature of the deceased in his
possession stating that his reason for
desiring to secure different signatures
of the deceased was that there was
likely to be some trouble about certain
papers; that these papers would be
closely scanned now, as he wanted TO
fix things up so that there would be no
doubt of their being all right when the
time came to settle up. That he, Creig,
handed Daniel f. Seybert several pa.
pers containing the sigature of Beck
with S. Brockway, the same being re-
ceipts, orders, etc. That Seybert took
these receipts away with him.
He remembered conversation with
William w. Seybert about the will in
which William stated that the whole
thing was forgery. That there was
difference between Daniel f. and
William w. Seybert in 1874. 1t oc-
Cured one day while they we're passing
from one of Daniels houses to another,
both being on the same property; that
Daniel insisted upon William paying
him some money that he owed that
William reminded him that the agree
ment was, when he signed the forged
will as a witness. that his debt to Dan
iel was cancelled and that in case the
will got through all right and Daniel
got the money from the insurance CON-
panies, much larger sum mentioning
thousands) would be paid to William
in addition to cancelling the debt.
Daniel would not hear to this and said
he would issue an execution and CON-
pei William to pay. William said that
he told Daniel then and there that he
would expose the forgery of the will if
Daniel attempted to collect the money.
Daniel made a rush at William and
said; Oh you, III kill you if you
expose that will business William
stepped to one side and avoided the
blow and picked up stone to defend
himself. Witness talked with Daniel
afterwards about the quarrel that had
occurred between him and William,
when Daniel said to him, the witness,
that he would certainly kill William if
he exposed anything.
G. f. Hill, an insurance agent from
Hazleton, who wrote the policy of
Beckwith S. Bro,kway in the Etna
Life Insurance Company, of New
York, was the next witness. He was
requested to examine the will and state
in whose handwriting the will was
written. Mr.. Hill said, after a careful
examination of the writing, that he
was of the opinion that Daniel F. Sey-
bert had written the body of the will,
and that the signature attached thereto
was not in the handwriting of Beck
with S. Brockway, but appeared to him
to resemble the writing in the body of
the will, which he was suro was writ
ten by Daniel f. Seybert; also upon
cross-examination that while on his way
home from Pittsburg, after a trial, he
was in the company of William w.
Seybert, who said to him that the note
presented by Daniel to the court to
prove that he had an insureable inter-
est in Mr.. Brockway's life, was a forg-
cry, and that the will was no better
This closed the testimony of the
plaintiff. Daniel f. Seybert, though
present at the hearing in the beginning,
declined to take any part in the exami-
nation of the witnesses or to be pres
ent by counsel. Counselor Hughes
asked that the Register reject the pro-
bate of the will, as the evidence pre-
sented left no particle of doubt that
the will was forgery. After reading
over the testimony again, Register
Boyd granted the prayer of the pcti-
tioners for the rejection of the will.
HISTORY OF TIE CASE. .
About the year 1867 Daniel f. Sey-
bert, of Beach Haven. induced Beck
with S. Brockway, of the same vicinity,
to have his life insured for the sum of
S4O,0OO,of which $4,000 were in the
Etna Life of New York, $4,000 in
the Connecticut Mutual Life and $1O,-
900 in the Mutual Benefit Life, of
Newark, N. j. About a year after
this Beckwith S. Brockway died. The
death proof was made out and all the
made for collection of the
insurance money by d. f. Seybert.
The companies Interested objected to
paying Seybert on the ground that he
had no insurable interest in the case.
Seybert brought suit against the Etna
company in 1872 in the courts of Luz
erne county. The matter was submit
ted to a referee-now Judge Hand
whose decision was adverse to Sey-
bert's claim on the ground that he had
no insurable interest in the life of
Brockway. Seybert rested until 1882,
when he brought suit against the New
ark company for the amount of its
policy, $4,000.
New complications had arisen in the
between Daniel f. Seybert
and William Wallace Seybert, who
was the witness to the will under
which Daniel held his claim. William
had carried out his threat and when
the case against the Newark company
was called the most important witness
for the company was Daniels former
confederate, w. w. Seybert. The thing
that Daniel depended upon to win his
case before the United States Court
was a note for $4,000 that he placed
in evidence. This note it was alleged
was given by Beckwith S. Brockway
TO Daniel F. Seybert for value receiv
ed. William w. Seybelt took the
stand and swore that this note was
forgery, and that the will held by
Daniel was no better. That ended the
matter at that time and in the mean.
Time the heirs of Beckwih S Brock.
way began to look up their interest.
The insurance companies have law
suit now with the people who are free
from all the complicatlng alliances that
made Daniel +. Seybert a failure be-
lore the courts, and the impression
among well-posted lawyers is that the
companies will have to hand over $50,
300, inSteai of $4,000, AZ ,he claim