New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-06-13
PARAN ,STETENS.S ESTATE.
FURTHER LITIGATION OVER IT.
APPEL FROM REPORT or THE REFEREE
CRITIcIsING MRS STEVENS.

APPEL FROM 4 REPORT OF THE REFEl'EE
CRITICIsING MRS. STEVENS
The litigation over the Paran Stevens estate which
has be,n In different courts ever since his death IN
1872 has now become so much involved that 1t would
take half dozen lawyers ana as many account
ants - &c, Il OIL; into some shape 50 mat IL can
be understood. And yet every now ana theh some
Judge Is called upon 20 act upon some feature %
the utiea,ion The General Term OF the supreme
Court-Presjcinc Justice Van Brunt and Judges Fol-
LETT and Parker-listenel for several hours yes'ri-
dav 20 A history Of the litigation upon an appear
which was presented TO them from )uusHheh' en-
tered upon ne report Of eX Judge W ihah !" CH'"'e
In November 1891. The record OF the appeal con-
sists OF hree large printed voumesone OF the lars
est cases tha. has been presented 10 the couI' III
years. ~ ,,,-
Mr. Stevens left an estate OF several million doNar"
consistn. largely Of hotel property in this c'y a"'
Boston his houses here and In Newport ana o'he'
valuable property lie left a widow MIS-. hHi'e'ta
H. Stevens and three children-Mrs John J." NIL
cher daughter by previous wife; Mary riSNe
Paget and Henry l.. Stevens. The last died III july
1855 Mr. Stevens directed that 100000 should De
maid 20 Mrs Stevens: that she have TIE use Du''"s
her life of the New-YOrk and Newport houses anu
Of some real estate in Rhode Island In aiu'''o' NC
providel mlion-dollar trust for her DeN'H' 'o'
life with directions that upon her death Inc pl'"o
nal should 20 to the children This was LETT IN
ardson Mrs Stevens was made eXecutrM' ana JONI
l. Necher and Charles G. Stevens executors
Mrs Stevens and her co-executors ana trustees
have never been able 10 agree In respect TO the au
nin!stration Of the estate. and they have Deeh CON
stantlv uuarrel,ing Mrs Stevens has attsihp'ei 20
have the trustees removed. but she mas pveh u't
far unsuccessful although she has pIocetu'Ih "O"
nendlng for The purpose OF removing Mt'cneI' 1900
Tn. case was sent TO eN-Julge hOdte SOI''o
wears ago as ~sferee examine INTO the acco".i
Of the executors and trustees ana rgpo' 70 ~
Court the condition OF the estate ne I.s"S 'o5I
was ,,roioneel before him for several ears ana
norted that the personal estate or Mt. 9'tNe.'s
amounted to about $1,000 ana the value 81 me rely
was more than $4,000 lie found that Mrs SieIgi.s
hal not faithfully discharged her trust, anu va
she had promoted unnecessary ana VeNhl9uS ~
cation she had been paid the 10000 beqHrsI ui ne
The will OF her husband. and the reteree ipNuu M
she had received al! OF the m, iOn-dOllar trust Wh
the exception of about Sl62S . -,
The judgment of the referee did not appear 70
safjsfv any OF the parties interested ia the e'At
and an appea. was taken In the interest cl a..
T'non the argument Yesterday eN-GoNernor Pfothe
Hnodl, reprfsentcd Mrs. Stevens. He argued that
fac,s presented 70 the referee and that the attack
~ The referee upon Mrs Stevens in his report was
Uncalle1 for He contended that Mrs. stevens nag
heon abused by the cO-tTustees ever since t'N ovE
charge OF the estate and that they hai waseH
i,nor her an unreenting warfare !nstrti OF coop
erafinr with her in the care ana mana cement ~
Tho estate George Zahriskie appeared Tor me eN,
ecu,ors Of the will. The Court took the papers ana
reserved its decision.