Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-28
NIss sAnx.s WILL SUSTAINED.
No tnfce inference Proved Axaias:
lie Rev. Mr.. Morrtli.
lNew York H,ralil.

Aver several months vi pa'iehI GA
animation Of the facts in the cise II.
rogate Rollins yesterday gave adecision
sustaining the will OF the late Catherine
Henrietta Marx. There have been isy
will cont-sts presenting more curious
or striking features.
The decedent was the granddaughter
Of DIR. Marx. who at one time was
physician to the King Of Bavaria, and
who subsequently came to this country
and settled ia Virginia. Her father was
Ashton Marx. who embarked in bust
ness in this city, amassing large tor
tune, which he left to his three daugh-
tiers. One Of these daughters, Mary
Caroline, left the bulk Of her property
30 Father Bradley, q Catholic priest.
There was an exciting contest over this
will. The decedent strenuously at
tackled its legality and validity because
of the alleged undue influence and con-
troll which Father Bradley was claimed
to have exercised over the mind of her
sister, and it was only finally estab.
lished after bitter and protracted liti-
CATION in the Surrogate's Court, the SUI
preme Court, and the Court OF APP
peals.
HER OWN WILL CONTESTED.
The will Of the youngest surviving
sister. Catherine Henrietta Marx, was
dated June II, 1876. Among the spe-
cial requests were the sword and dress
worn by her father at the Bavarian
court to the New York Historical So
ciety. She gave 81, 900 each to the So
ciety for the Prevention Of Cruelty to
Children and the Society for the Pre-
vention Of Cruelty to Animals, and,
excepting few other minor legacies,
bequeathed the residue of her estate,
valued at about 100000, to the
Rev. Charles W. Morrill,, who was
her pastor and at the time rec
tor of St. Adams church. She
died in this city in February, 1884,
at the age of seventy years. Various
cousins contested the will. The con-
testants insisted that upon the evidence
he paper propounded as the decendent's
eill should on various grounds be
tented probate. They claimed that it
sas not executed in conformity to law,
that the decedent at the time Of its
execution was not possessed OF tesla
mentary capacity, and that it did not
express her own free and unconstrained
purpose regarding the distribution Of
her estate, but rather the purpose of its
principal beneficiary, the Rev. Charles
W. Morrill,.
COMPETENT TO MAKE A WILL.
After reviewing in an elaborate opln-
ion the facts elected in the testimony
surrogate Rollins holds that the dece'
dent was fully competent to make a
will. The only basis for the contrary
contention is found, he says, in certain
portions Of the testimony Of DR.. White.
lie was acquainted with Miss Marx for
several years prior to the day when she
executed this will. He testified upon
his direct examination that on that
day her mental condition was, so
far as he observed, the same
as it had been for years pre-
yious." When asked whether there
was anything in her acts, demeanor, or
conversation indicating uasoundness OF
mind, he replied in substance that there
was nothing other than he had observed
at all times since the beginning Of the
contest over her sister Carolines will
in 1873. In his opinion there was no
reason to believe that the resentments
which were excited in the decedent's
mind by the testamentary act OF her
sister influenced her in the least in
making the disposition she did Of her
own estate.
no UNDUE INFLUENCE.
The last point considered was whether
Miss Marx, in the making and execution
of her will, was subjected to any inilu-
ence which justified the denial of its
admission to probate. lie holds that
no such influence was exerted, and that
the directors have little or nothing to
rely upon in support Of their contention
in this regard save the bare fact that,
with trihing exceptions, the decedent
left nothing to any Of her relatives and
bestowed the great bulk Of her estate
upon a person between whom and her
self there existed at one time intimate
relations of spiritual confidence.
81 think that the evidence in this
case may be fairly summarized as fol-
lows" Surrogate Rollins concludes his
decision: The decedent was some-
what advanced in years, but was pos
sessed Of abundant testamentary capa-
city. 1t does not appear that she was
peculiarly subject to imposition or con-
troll, either by weakness Of character
or by impaired mental powers, and not
a trace of actual fraud, dictation, or
duress is disclosed by the testimony.
When she made this will she had no living
ancestor, or child or other descendant,
or brother or sister, or uncle or aunt,
or nephew or niece. Between herself
and her nearest relatives there existed
no special intimacy or affection. The
will was drawn by counsel Of her own
choosing, in pursuance Of her express
instructions given in the course OF re-
peated consultations, and given, not 10
Difference, but in sturdy opposition, to
the only advice that she is known to
have received concerning the disposition
Of the estate"