The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1895-02-01
THE HARRINGTON WILL.

| liz n Ivan w AO@%e
Nephews and Nieees Begin the Effort
to Break 1t.
Case Opened in the Probate Court Thurs
day-some Former Wills Referred to.
The contest over the probating of the
will of the late Ira P. harrington began
in the Probate Court before Judge Pea
body I thursday forenoon. Messrs. Sy-
monds, Snow & Cook appeared for the
executors of the will, Judges Wm. L..
Putnam and Thomas H. Haskell. The
attorneys for the contestants who were
present were Messrs. Clarence Hale and
Clarence A. Hight. Also associated with
them are A. \. Strout, now abroad, and
Eibridge T. Burley, of Lawrence. Mass.
who was not present. Mccall & Brusin-
han, who drew up Jacob II. harrington 8
objections, did not appear. The heirs
who contest are:
Jacob H. Harrington, Of Saratoga
Springs, NY, Charles II. Harrington,
| of Boston, Charles K. harrington. of
Boston, Isaac H Harrington off Boston,
Alanson W. harrington, of Boston, Gibson
| F. Harrington of Boston, James W. Far
rington, of Boston, Emma z. Andrew, of
| Manchester, N. H., wife Of B. S. Andrew,
Harlan B. Kent, of Salem, Emory E.
81 Sara r II -
Bolton Landing, New York. These are
| all nephews or nieces of the testator.
| 1t will be remem bered that the objec-
tions to the will offered for probate are
that it is not the last will and testament;
that the testator was not competent to
| make it.; that be was subjected to I'm
due influence, etc.
Beginning the proceedings for the exc
| cutors, Judge Symonds said that they
would offer for probate the will of the
late Ira P. harrington, with codicil an
nexed. After the reading Of some pre-
liminary documents Judge Symonds
called the witnesses to the will, Messrs.
David w. Snow, Daniel Brooks and j. G.
Clay. David W. Snow Esq, was fist
called. II testified that he had been in
the practice of law in Portland for about
nine years. He had until within two
or three years had an office with Hon.
William L. Putnam. MIR. Snow, upon in
speeding the will identified it as having
been made in July 9, 1891, in Mr.. Put
NAM o aice.s For some time previous to
the drawing Of the will, Mr.. Harrington
had beenssin Mr.. Putnam's office consid
erably.s Witness knew him and had done
business for him. On the date of the
will witness, in company with Messrs.
Brooks and Clay. had been called in to
witness the will. Mr.. Putnam, in the
presence OF the witnesses, had asked Mr..
harrington if he understood and ap-
proved the document, and Mr.. Earring
ton replied that he did, and singed it.
The document then was as it is now ex-
cept for the codicil, which has since been
added. Mr.. Snow testified THAI he had
known Mr.. Harrington for ten or fifteen
years, and considered him Of perfectly
of change, either as to body or mind.
The witness was cross questioned by
Mr. Hale, and in reply testified that he
had witnessed a previous will, but could
not say how long It was before the sign
ing of the present will. Judge Symonds
will, since it had not been offered for
probate and was not in question.
Judge Peabody allowed the line of gus
tioning to continue; and witness said
the time of the signing of the previous
will was proba bly, three or five years be-
fore the execution Of the will Of 's1.
/ Witness could not remeln Der the con-
tents OF the former will, or the names of
the other witnesses. He did NOT know
what became ofathe former will. Wit
ness knew nothing of still earlier will
drawn by another lawyer, or of will
drawn by MIR. Harrington. himself with
out the aid Of. lawyer.
"During the conferences over the max
ing of this present will, did not another
man come in with him?" asked Mr..
Hale.
II dc not remember"
Diu yOu huOW auJ uA ing VI q eodASi-
ence at Mr.. Farrington's house when Mrs.
Harrington, Mr.. Putnam and another
gentleman were PRESENT." II did not"
Having never heard of the will made by
Mr.. harrington, he could not say wheth-
er or net Mrs. Harrington was named ex-
ecutrix.
When Mr.. Hale asked who were the
executors of the will made just previous
to that of 1891. Judge Symonds objected.
But the question being admitted. wit
ness replied that he did not know.
Witness did not recall anything in re-
gard to the codicil.
Mr.. Daniel Brooks, of Portland, being
called next, testified that he was in the
Office of VIM. L. Putnam for nineteen
years, until Mr.. Putnam went on to the
bench, in April, 1892. The will was first
dictated to Mr.. Clay by Mr.. Putnam, and