New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-02-14
A WITNESSES COMPETENCY.
MAY MRS. wETHERELL TESTIFY

sRcIrurNTs ABOUT EVIDENCE IN The e1H"
ART Will. cAsE-AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
conso, for the contestants in the Stewart VIII case
e.,,a a witness I'm the surrogates Court Yesterday
rnornnr Mrs. Kate A. wetheren daughter Oh eA-Suuso
I Lawrence smith, and widow OF the he'. o. bioo,"'
field wethereli In the absence OF MI Innate WI
Cleveland conducted the examination Ai'er 80
preliminary guess lions as to her relations WIN M
and Mrs. stewart and to the health manner anu
s,sros,tIon of Mrs stewart Mr. Cleveland asked the
witness to give detail conversation which she hau
held with Mrs Stewart after her husbands dea'n' III
regard TO the management and condton Oh 1no %
tate
Attorney eneral Russell was on his feet IN an
instant and from that moment 1t became evident tna'
nm more testimony would be given during the DAY.
Mrs wetherell received by the Will Of Mrs. stewart
5000 ooO Mr. Russell objected to her testimony on
the ground that she therefore, interested ~ '
breaking Of the Will lie examined MIS- "e'neion'
and she admitted that she had slgned inc asroe'on
Of the heirs TO a partition Of the estate When sur
rocoto pansom suggested that she had testified In
sayor Of the Will Mr. Russell replied that by the for
fait,,re clause she has all benefits that she msn
have enjoyed II tho Will were sustained her soie
interest In the case was to have the VIII oroAe'
BY that means only could she derive any Dement'S
from the estate Mr. Russell read extracts from other
cases 10 show the strength of his position. Taking
up tho agreement, he explained Its meaning IS IL
appeared TO him, in detail
MANY OPINIONS EXPRESSED.
The Surrogate, Mr. Russell. Elihu Root, eH-1uuso
Gilbert stephen p Nash and Mr.. Cleveland explained
their positions and views. All the forces OF the pro-
ponents were massed against this point OF ATTACH MI
Russell maintained that Mrs. WethereHs lneres' ts'
IN the fact that her mother would be gamer ny 'no
setting aside of the will she herself therefore, IN
view Of future interest through her mothers share IN
tho estate could afford to come within the effect OF inc
norta,tnre clause Mr.. Root in his arguments en-
6cavored 10 show that there were numerous grouhus
for obectng to her testimony. In fact all tne couo'
for proponents maintained that her interest was
evident According 10 the terms OF the agreement sue
would receive her 100000 Immediately, WINE u
the win had net been attacked she could not nave
obtained her legacy until three years from the te VI
the final pobatc. Here pecuniary interest ~
be deprived from the three years additional use u ~
sum If the win were set aside.
Mr. cleve,and on the other hand declared IN answer
to this that the witness would not be gamer W w
brealdnc of the will. While she might gam thrce
wears IN the use of the sum, gain to 90 reProSoo
nv IS per cent she would by the terms OF the asreo
ent lose onefth or 20 per cent of her share, were
~. yin set aside This would be direct loss 10 her'
Tho agreement. moreover It was contended, uu not
bring the witness under the forfeiture clause
A STUBBORN CONTEST
The contest from the start was a stuooorn oo'
potb sides struggled for the mastery, ana inc arg
ments were continued unin the uhe iOI uIo -
aImost come. Surrogate Ransom said that The
SETTLING Of this disputed question most important
IA him II was clear that the signing Of the agree
ment brought the heirs within the scope OF tne
forfeiture clause then slgner had an interest IN 'h9
breahtnc of the win and the testimony OF sueh one
was incompetent lie would give counsci tloie ., " "
nrerare their arguments he suggested that tney
tate unt,l o'clock Such the Importance OF tnc
question Under discussion, however, that he was VIII
ipg to give ample time for preparation Upon apphca
tton from counsel for the contestants accordingly u0
hearing was adjourned until Monday morning. fep-
ruary %. - ,,.,,o
Ii the counsel for the contestants arc nDio -
., ,dept ON that day that Mrs WetherelPs testimony
&c against her own interest is maintained ana tna
The forfere clause does not apply 10 her as sSne
Of tho agreement her testimony VIII aceePve s oT
connefenf The aim Of counsel for the popVunehS,
the other hand is 10 show that the eect Oh ms era -
,rn,id bc n be viii were sustained, to deprive heI VI
Ler legacy under the win. II they succeed IN thls
She viii be disqualified as witness