Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-03-12

| farm, worth some 50, COO to 10000. Tine
/ went on. and bitter pangs were felt by
this union. Again CLANCY desired sepa-
ration. and he gave this woman 81. 900 and
she returned to her former home IN Ken
! lucky. Cnaney was man f0mewhat adj T.
vanced in years, and, having no one to
| 1--we with him, got his niece, Mrs. Sallie
Bryan, to come and live with him to
! soOthe his declining life. She came, but
before the expiration OF three months all
that was mortal of II. NJ. CLANCY was
quietly laid beneath the sod. In an old
account book, on page 100, was found the
following pencil writing:
''H. Nj. CLANCY to Sallie Bryan: / give
to my niece, Sallie Bryan, his Cor this
farm at my death. II she leaves before
that, this will be null and void.
II. Nj. CHANEY."
Mrs. Bryan consulted many about the
supposed will and received no encourage
ment until she reached the law office OF
Gallaun firm, when they advis her that
the paper writing was as q testamentarV
paper. She employed them in the case
and they at once offered this singular doc
umentiO FOR probate before the County Court
az the Will OF II. NJ. Chauey, deceased.
This issue devsavit vel non was made be-
fore the Circuit Court by the children OF
Chaney. Contestants denied the
geuuineness of the paper, SAYING il
was forgery; denied that II. NJ. Cha.
ney's handwriting was generally known
among his acquaintauces, denied il was
found among bis valuable papers, it (the
boo was found in an old trunk contain
ing CnaDey's shOemaker's tools; they de-
MED his sanity The case wasftried four
times, with three mistrials, but the fourth
trial the jury returned verdict, finding
that the paper was genuine, aud was the
n an ~ D Hat.aungH IuHrn Stool
disallowed the motion Tor a new trial and
the defendants Appealed to the Supreme
Court. just at this juncture Mrs. Cha
ney, the first wife, flied her bill in the
ChanceGy Court, at Gallatin, claiming
that the Indiana divorce proceedings
were fraudulent ana void and she was his
widow, and, rs such, entitled TO dover IN
this land. Mrs. Bryan answered this bill
denying her right to Cover ard claiming,
among other things, that when she aud
CLANCY separated, In 1870. he gave her by
deed 1860 acTe5 of land in Kentucky under
tue articles Of separation, which she had
given her children, and that before she
could claim dover in this land she must
return or account for the 100 acres. HaV-
ing decided this away so that it could
not be returned she had estOpped herself
from claiming dover. This case was
tried before Chancellor George +. Seay,
W uO ueClucu Tue bdllb III idNOi vi vi -
CLANCY. Defendant appealed this case
to the Supreme Court. Both Of these cases
were tried at the present term. In the
will case the opinion Of the court was de-
-livered by Chief Justice Deaderick, he
sustaining the finding of the jury and tue
whole charge and rulings of Judge stark
In the chaneery dover case Justice W. f..
Cooper delivered the opinion, reversing
Chancellor Seay's decree. holding that
Mrs. Clancy was not entitled to dover in
this tract Ofland. All the litigation has
ended. after fifteen years in the courts,
and Mrs. Bryan having died. her son and
husband yet the land.
CLANCY was a queer old soul, and after
his death it was discovered he had $50, 900
in bank in Indianapolis and this amount
was a bone Of contention among his chill
dren. and went the rounds OF the courts in
Tennessee and Indiana. Finally it was
settled and most OF the money was paid
out to clerks, lawyers and attorneys.