The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-05-03
ABOUT A WILL.
Question Whether Wife or Church
Should Have The Money.
Cases Heard In the Several Divisions
Of Court.

Before the appellate division of the Su-
preme Court today was heard the abpli-
cation of he heirs at-law OF Ann Feeney,
deceased, to have the sum of $1,000, which
is on deposit in the Warren Institu-
ton for Savings paid over to them
tor of the will and testament OF William
Feeney, who in his lifetime was the hus-
band OF Ann William, and who died
about six weeks before his wife.
Both were old residents of Warren and
some years after their marriage Mrs. Fee
ney deposited sl6O in the bank in her own
name, and continued to deposit various
snns from time to lime in the same way
until 1876. la 1869 Mr.. Feeney, having
previously bought some land, built q
house on one part of IL and $1,000 was
drawn from the bank to pay for the
building of the house. In 1875 an order
was sent To the bank by Mrs. Feeney to
add the name OF her husband to the de-
posit.
Mr.. Feepey, short time before his
death, met Father Fogarty and said to
him, ~ want TO make my WILL" to which
the clergyman replied that that was
nothing TO him. But" said Feeney,
81 want to leave something TO the
church" "That Is different" said Father
Fogarty, and about week after the will
was drawn up, Father Fogarty going with
MIR. Feeney 10 the town clerks office, and
accepting the position OF executor.
Father Fogarty drew three different
sums of money from the bank on orders
from Mr.. Feeney, one was for ss, one
for $1,000 and one for $500. In regard to
the $1,000 Withdrawal, Father Fogarty
testified that Mr.. Feeney said to him
"Here is $1,000 which you will keep until
call for it," The day after this, when he
called, Mrs. Feeney very conspicuously
displayed the other $1,000.
- L. =
wife was TO have the use OF the real prop
erty owned by him and after his death
he provided for its distribution among
certain heirs OF both himself and wife and
the residue OF his estate was left to st.
Mary's Catholic Church Of Warren. Mrs.
Feeney, as has been stated, survived her
husband only short time. During most
of this time she was in feeble health, but
once she asked Father Fogarty "what dis
position William had made OF his prop
ertyY" to which he replied "We
will talk of this some other time when
-you-are- stronger explained the
reason for this statement, on his part,
was that be wished TO take advantage of
lucid moment of Mrs. Feeney TO have
her tend to spiritual affairs. At the time
she asked this question Father Fogarty
testified that she said he would not go
across the lot to change anything her
husband had done.
Il. Nj. Bosworth, counsel for the execu-
tor, contended that Mrs. Feeney had
agreed to the disposal of the property
made by her husband, and G.. l.. Cook, for
the heirs at law, contended the deposit
was joint one to go 20 the survivor, and
consequently should be paid TO the heirs
of Mrs. Feeney.
In the same division of the court a
hearing was had on the demurrer of the
defendant in the case of Lyons VS.. Union
Railrnnh (fOpnnanu 10 ON
mept and counsel for defendant were
given leave to file brief later.
The usual number of motions are down
for action by the court tomorrow