New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-12-13
A PASSAGE AT ARMS.
long ARGUING IN THE STEWART CASE.
MRS. PRESCOTT HALL BUTLEKs Oo"rh
STILL THE SUBJECT OF DisCussioN~
MANY PEOPLE PRESENT.

MANY PEOPLE PRESfNi'
The Stewart will case yesterday a''rac'ou ia'
crowd of curious persons to the surr"sa -
Tverv chair in the room occupied long oeloi"
~, 1870 1ras reopened and after counsel had got
tarlv starred I'm bringing antafonistic as"m n's
couchcd in language of brilliant eioVuo"''' s
room was scarce. The discovery Vi '"0 's
between tho legateeS, which produced sucn sons"
tion in court had evidently attracted the a''en''o" "
the general public. When surrogate kansoni Wv"
,ho ho,cb Mr. Choate was ready for action ana al
go moved a reopcnng of the argument as 10 inc
competency Of the testimony OF MIS- fIes'o'' 10
butler The day before had closed with tho s''iAn7
ont ~ Mrs Buffers testimony. The counsel Tor
co,,.stants had been caught by surprise ana were
ab,e of the time TO cope with the interpretations
nv nroponeus of the provisions Of the agreement
RE-opENING THE ARGUMENT
The Surrogate permitted the rcopeninG OF the
argument and Mr. Choate at once branchea out HUI"
n nav point. The purpose was, as II hau ooo" 'n0
dav before 70 show that Mrs. Buffers m'eiVe' In
her legacy of 100000 was greater than her ao"er
,nterest in her husbands Inheritance law II INC
VIII we're sustained, and that therefore, the sustain
, rather than the breaking OF the will was her IN
fercst The agreement had seemed 10 place 'hs o"'
NJ o,,est,on Mr.. Choate. however, maintained ,na'
the surrogate had jurisdiction under inc statutory
law I'm revoking the probate OF that portion VI .o
will which dspoSes Of real property ao" quoV'u
host Of authorities and decisions TO support MS
,,, ,hose nortons of tho will which distribute
nsreonal property he held. could be revoked mere
fore IL was apparent that Mrs. Buffers
in her husbands share of the realty wouiu oo VI ~
value while It Of much importance " ne. 80 ~
zee the will sustained so 10 receive her s-oo'ooo
Fysurrogafe Rollins, on the other hahd' "en' INV
,rr historical review of the statutory law governing
,be case I'm his attempt show the court where Mr..
.Cbeate was wrong. Mr.. Root and eX-Judge kusSen
also took part the argument, which occupioo
several hours Eventually the Surrogate suhi"aiN'd
what had been submitted to him.
The Surrogate-It seems to me undenlaoo t
,bis court has not the power 10 revoke the Pooao9
OF will of real property, while II can rev9he ua' ",
will OF personal estate. That alone would cause me
70 Tiie that Mrs Butler competent a portion Of
section 24s1 however, seems to give ms court te
oSthodtv where fraud and undue influence is proven,
tbomcb not TO revoke the probate yet to "vacate
The decree admitting the will to probate" NO one Can
n"S Mr. ChoateNYonr Honor, not only have doubt,
but cannot begin TO see where you peeln 10 speh IL
'"T The surrocate-wcn, should nevertheless thus
rule Yet am wiling Ing s nn so @Se sdes again
SO that they may throw further light on ms SUBJECT
Mr. Choate-well, your Honor that is satisfactory
has declared itself to be doubt to It's ruling
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
Tho Surrogate Qnpauenuy)-Mr Rollins, l mado
use M Gi Rotns-I desired to express myself in your
The surrogate-Then please confne yourself to my
Mr. Rollns-Oh, only desired to say that We wero
willing 10 submit further argument
Mr. Choate-In the meantime. should Suggest that
we put another witness on the stand .
Mr. Rollins-Your honor, we must insist that the
Mrs Butler question be first disposed Of.
The Surrogate-Then the best thing can DO is 70
adjourn this examination until next Monday morning
Mr. Choate's offer to place another witness ON the
stand was 8 general surprise Everybody supposed
that the contestants witnesses consisting principally
Of the parties to division agreement, all camo under
she same objections Mrs Butler. The Importance
of the days argument therefore realized and the
next developments Of the case are '~ Ted with
Interest.