New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-01-01
MIsER PAINE's WILL NOT ADMITTED.

NEITHER UNDUE INFLUENCE NOR FRAUD USED
REASONS FOR THE DECISION.
The Paine will case has long been famous one
in the courts and the story Of the eccentric
miscr's life has been told many times.
Paine was brother of Robert Treat Paine, Of
Boston, In early life he had written musical
criticisms for Boston newspapers and coming to
New-York in 1854 continued this kind of work for
some time He lived in a garnet at No. III
Bceclscr-st.. and died there alone December 23,
1885 After his death John ii. Wardwcl. who
had been intimate with him for many years, set up
his claim to all the old mans property under u
will which he declared had been duly executed,
but had been lost. After long trial. the chief
sensation Of which was the production in court OF
package which Paine had deposited in the safe Of
C. Chiclkering, the piano manufacturer, and
was found TO contain over S356,OOO in greenbacks'
the Surrogate reserved his decision. Soon after
the case closed Mr.. Ward well died at Bristol
X l.. 1T the age OF seventy. The Surrogates de-
cision is as follows.
The petitioner herein seeks the probate OF In
strumcnt which is claimed to have been executed By
this decedent his last Will and testament
No instrument answering to that description has
been produced before the Surrogate, and tho evidence
shows that no such instrument has been seen since
decedcnts death.
Tho surrogates authority. under these circhm-
stances TO admit VIII to p,o' ate rests up" the pro
and according to the limitations Of the section.
only be exercised where Judgment establishing ihe
VII could be rendered 9y the Co es
taDlis hing lost destroyed WILL sunless the VIII
was i'm existence at the time OF the testat0r's DEATH
or was frandenty DESTROYED In his lifetime. ana lts
provisions clearly and distinctly proven by a.
least two credible witnesses. correct copy or uralt
being equivalent to ono witness"
THE POINTS To DE DETERMINED
The several issues be here determined are, there
fore
Ibid this decedcnt. August 10 1885. execute,
I'm compliance with the requirements OF the law
written instrument as and for his last will and tesla
mcnt! M, /. .,
o-If he did execute such instrument, ala ne al
the tne of such execution, possess The tcstamoh'%y
capacity requisite for making Will
a IL no did execute such Instrument was ne III
duced so to do by undue influence or fraudf -.
4-If such instrument was so eAecuted nave l,s
provisions been clearly and distinctly proved as re-
auIred by Section 500 Of the Code OF Clv PrOccdurv
5-If such Instrument was so executed. was u III
existence at tho time OF this dccodents death
eff such instrument executed was not In ex-
stence tho time OF the decedents DEATH haa u oec
fraudently destroyed H. his life timcl
THE issues above specified have been the subject
~ long and interesting controversy before the suiro
gate They have inv olvod the consideration OF
large mass OF testimony, and -ef Important ana UNI
cnIf LEGAL questions. Whom the cause was submitted
tor determination, H. was my pu pose 10 accompany
nv formal decision of this controversy with ini
siateme,t OF tho reasons by which SUCH decision
should DO supported
MATTERS or FACT DECIDED
T., giving such attention al has been necessary to
the volume Of business which has been ef'wasd Into