Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1889-02-22
THE MOVES WILL CASE.
FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BY
THE SUPREME COURT.
Motion for a New Trial Denied at the
Adjourned Term in This city Last
wcaI1-A Sketch of the now
Famous Case.

The celebrated Moves win case, which
was heard and disposed Of in the Supreme
Court in this city Thursday, was tried be-
fore a struck jury in this city at the Sep
TENDER term, 1887, of Chittenden County
Court and was heard on contestants eXcep
ton at the general term of the Supreme
Court held at Montpelier October last. The
question upon which the cause was taken to
the Supreme Court by the contestant was
as TO whether "A claimed subsequent and
revoking will could be set up by testimony
less potent in character and degree than
that reqm1ed to establish a will.
The will in question, dated in June, 1881,
was conceded TO have been properly executed
by the testator, V. p. Noyes, but it was
claimed that he made subsequent will in
1880 just before his death disposing of his
estate in a manner more satisfactory to the
contestant. 1t was sought to establish this
will by the testimony of G. NJ. Delaney
who claimed to have seen and read
the pretended will of 1885 and heard the
tesiator call it his will, but the court ruled
that this testimony was entirely incompe-
tent and that it would he necessary for the
contestant to establish such will, in the man
ner provided by the statutes for proving a
will, and that the revocation by the alleged
later will could not be established by the
parole testimony alone of persons who claim.
ed to have seen it and heard the testator
say it was his will.
This ruling of the court was sustained by
the entire bench without dissent, and an
able opinion handed down by Judge Ross
| disposes of this cause about which there was
so much comment by the press at the time Of
trial The amount involved is about 81,
| 600 600 and. by the will sustained, the propon-
| ent and executor, j. NJ. Noyes wellknoW
banker of New York and brother of the
testator, is sole legatee save SlO, 600 willed tC
his sister, Mrs. Brown.
The case had been vigorously contested,
the counsel engaged being, Hon. George +.
Edmunds. ard W. J.. Burnap. esq, of Bur
lington. and Michael H. C0rdozo, esq, OF
| New York, in behalf of the proponent, and
| f. r. Hard, esq. Henry Ballard, esq, OF
| Burlington, and Harrington q Post of St
Adams for the contestant.
PETITION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
Just prior to the hearing of the exception.
at the general term the contestant served a
petition for new trial based upon the afIi
davit of M Charles II. Brownell that he
had witnessed a will drawn by Judge Pc
land August II, 1885, and just prior to the
testator's death, and witnessed also by judge
Poland and George W. Foster Of St Adams
both of whom have since died. Testimony
was taken upon the petition for new trial
and the Supreme Court heard the caus
yesterday.
After the conclusion Of the arguments fo
the petitioner, the court, having examined
the brief of the counsel for j. NJ
Noyes, petitionee, during the argument of thu
petitioners counsel, stated that they die
not wish to hear any argument on behalf o
the petitionee, and proceeded to dispose OF
the petition on the spot. Judge Ross il
commenting &aAs the case stated, that al
the conclusion Of the testimony the court
were impressed with the opinion that the
testimony offered by the petitioner was not
sufficient under all the circumstances t
change the result if a new trial was granted
and that it was incredible thatJudge Poland
who was contestants counsel, should hav,
had knowledge of any subsequent will an,
not made it known. The counsel in thi
proceeding were the same as in the former
with the exception Of Senator Edmunds witt
did not appear