New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-11-30
THE MORGAN MILLIONS.
VARIOUS LITIGATION OVER THE ESTATE.

coHc'uoh VI ecnlngs, the selling OF cios'" si''
long continued and exciting auction sale OF her ar
tsuc treasures public interest in this woman ana her
rcmarablc gathering Of costly objects OF art natur
~ came 10 n end. In the course OF lew days IL
is likely to revive again, for before the end Of this
week the Court Of Appeals viii probably reach case
No. III, WITCH concerns not only the executors Oh
Mrs. Mary Jane Morgan but all the heirs OF her
husband Charles Morgan, as we'll.
The story Of Mrs. Morgans life is probably still
fresh In the minds OF most people. How, after Nv
ing life Of quiet respecabilltyi with her husband
through the years in which, by close economy and
nevcr-varyinG attention to business, he amasscd
fortune so largo that modest millions were spoken OF
almost unexpectedly in computing 1t; how upon
the death Of her husband her shao Of the estate was
largely spent in collecting beautiful objects OF all
sorts' from South American orchids to japanese
NetSuks: how her sudden death interrupted the ac-
qustiOn OF what would probably have turned out 10
be one of the most varied and extensive artistic cocc
tons In tho world: how the large sums spent by
her in this way had considerably essencd the fortune
left to her, which was still further diminished not
only by her many and worthy private benefacuohs'
but by unaccountable gifts to clergy man-ail THIS
viii be at once remembered by many besides tnose
who focked to the galleries where for eight days ana
six evenings object after object, either curious or
beautiful, was knocked down at prices hitherto un
heard Of in American auction rooms, and rarely
brought any where in the world
Shortly before Mr. Morgan's death he divided
among certain OF his heirs property TO tho amount
of S8,0OO,O00 1t consisted Of stock and Dohds Oh
the stock company into which he had converted MS
steamship and railroad organizations which, cap
italzed at IS 100000 sold at 12O and yielded
the larger mentioned. This property was given,
roughly speaking, in equal shares to his wle' Mrs'
Mary Jane Morgan; his daughter, Mrs oulntard'
his daughter Mrs. Charles A. Whitney; ana MS
grandchd, Richard J. Morgan, son of Charles NOR
gan, jr. His will dealing with tho remainder OF HIS
property bequeathed simply all his estate. both real
and personal, to his hers-atlaw, to be divided DO
tween them according to the laws OF the oCi'e ol
New-York He thus apparently settled his ahaIrs
beyond any possibility of trouble after MS oea.n
He had, however, reckoned without all his heirs HIS
daughter in law, Mrs. Henry Morgan, ana her chil-
drcn and the heirs of Mrs. Harris another daughter,
Immediately brought suit. They claimed that the
division of his property before death was the result
of undue influence, and claimed that the sums 80
given should be returned by the recipients ana 20
with the rest Of the estate subject to the general
accounting, and should be divided according to the
laws of the estate Mrs. Morgan's sole desire was
that her husbands wishes should be strictly carried
out. Had the $6,OO0,000 been put with the resi- Oh
the estate and divided the contestants Wished her
own share widow would have been larger by some
100000 than 1t according to her husbands dls
position Of the property. But this was in no way
considered by her. Against her own Interests she
determined to fight the matter as hard as If 1t were
TO her own pecuniary advantage to win the SUIT
she paid to Mrs. Quintard, Mrs. whitney ana
Richard Morgan their proportion of the S6,OOO,OOO
and took from them indemntcs, SO that IN case
decision given against them she and her estate
would be secure from loss.
Charles Morgan died in May, 1879, and since then
tho case has been dragging its way through the
courts. In July, 1885, Mrs. Morgan died leaving
no WILL and her administrator, William NOR, the
well known jewecr, carries out what he knows were
her wishes in stil conestng the suit as far as her
estate is concerned As Mrs. Morgan died lnestate,
her heirs are William Moir. Mrs Charles Phelps
ss era: Mrs j. Seymour and Thomas Newcomo'
children OF Sarah NcwcOmb sister; and ,.
n. sexton, son of s. S. NJ Sexton, brother
OF Mrs. Morgan. These are all directly IN
ter,s,ed in the decision, but II they lo-e their
suit they VIII, curously enough, be pccunarlly
benefited unless their lawyers fees run ABOVE
$500 OOO which is not likely. If they win they
will get nothing and VIII probably nave SUN EIrgcr
legal expenses to pay. Tomorrow, IL Is hoped by
those Interested, the will he reached at Albany
Messrs Sullivan and Cromwell will appear for Mrs
Morgans administrators and those TO whom the
sums of money were given; they Will be assisted by
Joseph Ii. Choate and Francis LYME atctson. The
other side will be Represented 10y Jonn b. Parsons
ard Charles w. Dayton.
When this matter is positively settled one way
another, 1t is the purpose of the administrator OF
Mrs Morgans estate to see whether something can
not be extracted from the Rev. Nathaniel w. Conk-
Ing who, it is claimed, obtained such influence over
the widow soon after her husbands dcah thaV ne
received from her upward of Sl,OOO,OO0 first anu
last, without giving therefore any consideration
Conkling preached his funeral sermon. lie thcn
lived in unOsentatious way in East thirty ourth-
st., and pastor Of the church at MadlsonaVe.
and Twenty ninth ST. Soon after Mr.. Morgan dcath
his acquaintance with the widow began, and before
long he the owner of the house NO. 90 East
Thirty fourth ST., which was purchased iOr MN 10y
Mrs Morgan for $4,000. She is said to have spent
$4,000 additional in fitting it up for him and dec
Grating it, She is said to have given the clergyman
various large sums of money and TO nave sent MN
and his family consisting of wife and three chill
O "A
Finally, it is stated that Mrs. Morgan capped the
climax of her generosity to the clergyman, who had
left his pastOrate in 1881, by presenting MIN WIN
100000 in United States bonds. The story goes
that he carried these bonds away from her house IN
a cab and afterward went to Europe, returning
therefrom only after the death of his beneiactrcss.
Just a year ago accounts of Mr.. ConlUlngs rea-
tions with Mrs. Morgan were printed III the New
York papers, and though some explanation OF MS
sudden accession to fortune was sought from inc
clergyman he steadfastly refused to say any thins
Much Of what printed was based on the state.
ments Of Thomas DobsOn, who said he was one OF
the legal advisers of Mrs. Morgan. He was brother
of Miss Margaret l.. Dobson who acted as MIS-. MOr-
gan's confidential maid for several years. MT Doo-
son undoubtedly knew much OF what occurred pc
tween Mr.. Conkling and Mrs. Morgan ana "heh lle
SUIT Is begun, as 1t probably soon VIII De' ho ho
doubt would be valuable witness. IL was ne VINO
said that he had assisted Mr. Conkling INTO inc cao
with the 100000 in United States bonds
"Unfortunatey," said William MOir, the ADMIN
istrat0r, yesterday, 1--WE do not know where MT
Dobson is. AS far as We have any knowledge OF MS
movements, he is not now In New -forh Inns iac'
alone has deferred somewhat the action we shall take
in the matter / can promise you, however, that
some action will certainly be taken before long. l
consider 1t duty TO the community. III Is
most unpleasant duty TO have to perform, but
should not feel easy In M mind did not make sone
effort to obtain restitution In Of Its bearings
l am reminded, when l think Of the matter Oh the
Wilson -Moen case As TO the Will case L so 10
Albany on Wednesday to attend the argument, which
cannot fail to be interesting think in this regard
Mrs. Morgan deserving Of great praise she en-
deaN ored faithfully to carry out her husbands WISH
es, although 1t meant a large pecunary loss To hcr-
self. Weak, as unfortunately she was In her deciin-
ing years, Mrs. Morgan nevertheless woman
Of unbounded generosity, kindness Of heart and recu-
tude Of purpose"
STEALING TRAY OF DIAMONDS
A DARING ROBBERY IN BOwERY JEwELRf STORE