The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-12-18
TALKED FOR SIX HOURS.
Ex-MaYor Collins and the Gordon
Will Case.

The almost interminable Gordon will
case was before Chancellor McGll again
yesterday. The case is said to be drawing
to close. All the testimony is in and
the argument has begun.
Ex-Mayor Collins spoke yesterday, and
he found enough to say to keep him busy
during SIX long hours. He gave an ex.
haustive history OF the case. insisted that
the original will Of 1868 was genuine. and
declared that the fact had been proved
by Henry G. Adams, who witnessed its
execution.
.'There can be no doubt of the genuine
ness of the signature of George p. Gordon
to this WILL" said Mr.. Collins, land the
efforts OF our opponents to prove 1t
forgery are absurd"
MIR. Collins then showed that the var
iety and complicated character of the
provisions of the will exactly fitted the
surroundings of Mr.. Gordon in 1868. and
could not possibly be reproduced by a
forger in 1878, at which time, If there was
a forgery, it must have taken place.
Counsel, he said, had critically examined
the will and previous draft in evidence,
and argued from internal evidence that
the will must have been genuine.
Mr.. Collins made comparison of the
language in many parts of the will with a
paper admittedly signed by George P.
Gordon in 1873, which was intended for
will. but which had not been properly ex-
ecuted.
1.-THE language in many instances"
Mr.. Collins said. ''is identical. which
goes to show that the person who drafted
the paper of 1878 must have had some
paper containing parts of contents
of the will of 1868 before him. Mr..
Adams has testified that Mr. Cor
don took such draft of the will in 1868.
This would clearly show that the will
now in dispute was in existence before
1873. and consequently there is no force
whatever in the attempt 10 show that the
red ink interlneations of what is sup
posed to be rough draft of the will were
made with eosine ink, not discovered un-
til 1874.
On the question of domicile, which is
considered an important point in the case,
Mr.. Collins argued that there was evi
dence to show that Mr.. Gordon's home
WAS in Woodbridge. near Railway.
Counsellor Theodore +. Miller, for the
contestants. held that Mr.. Gurdon's home
was in Brooklyn. and that under the law
the primary probate could only have been
made in that city. He said:-
''Mr. Gordon acquired a legal domic!le
in Brooklyn In 1874. He voted there in
1876 There is no evidence that he ever
voted in Woodbridge or any other New
jersey town. His funeral was from his
Brooklyn house. his remains having been
brought from Norfolk, Va. where he
died. This and the fact that he paid
personal tax on property in his Brooklyn
residence regard as conclusive proof
that he never surrended his legal domi-
cile in that city," s.s..s, .s.+.
Mr.. llerresumed his argument this
morning. He cansed much amusement
by reading from Dickens and instituting
comparisons between Adams and Mr..
Pecksniff Mr.. Adams, he said, was a
very conceited man. The Counsellor con-
tended that the Chancellor in being
asked to allow the will to stand was ask
ed to overthrow the vested rights held by
innocent parties that had been settled for
years. 1t was peculiar fact that Mr..
Adams could remember details of every
thing long years ago and forget things
that have transpired in recent years.
Adams had the will in his possession
and did not notify the wife and
daug hter of Gordon, but hawked iJ around
among different relatives. Had he been
an honest LAWYER he would have imme-
diately notified the wife and daughter.
When upon the stand Adams cou Id give
no reason why he had neglected to do so.
Au adjournment was taken at two
O'Clock.