The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-07-19
CAVEAT Was NOT FILED
Question Of Veracity Betweea Ather'
ton and His Deputy.
TESTIMONY OF THE FORMER
Says Mr.. AXE ly Told Him Ho Threw tho
Cavcat In tho Waste Basket Mr.
Ackerly Denies That He Did
Anything Of the Kind.

There were Developments Of a some
what sensational nature yesterday IN
hearing In the office Of Attorneys HUI
slander & Vosburg. before Attorney w.
F. Boyle. sitting as commissioner.
Some time ago court granted a rule
to show cause why James Nichols
should not be allowed to file a caveat
against the probating Of the Will OF MS
father. the late DR.. Hiram Nichols. OF
Clark's Summit, and have II marked
as II filed Oct. S. 1856, Attorney Boyle
was appointed to take testimony on this
rule and yesterday was the first hearing
held.
DIR. Hiram Nichols died about Sept.
2S. 1885, and In his will disinherited his
son. James Nichols. who says that on
Oct. 5 he directed Attorney w. w.
Watson to file caveat against the
probating OF the will. The paper can
not now be found in the register OF
Wills Office, and to replace II the pres
ent proceedings were begun. MIR.
Nichols maintaining that at the time
the caveat was filed the will OF his
father had not been offered for probate
MIR. McGin,cy's Testimony.
Attorney NJ. A. Mckinley swore that
in the office Of Attorney ". W. Wat
son. who asked him about Oct, 5. OF that
year, to take caveat In the Nichols
case to the register of Wills office and
have II filed He obeyed instructions
and gave the paper to Deputy Register
OF Wills Il. F. Akerly. A Mr.. Clark
testified, that by directions OF James
Nichols he went to Attorney Watson's
Office to have the caveat filed. and then
\. A. Atherton. who was register Of
wills in 1856 was called to the stand.
He said that his deputy, Mr.. Akerly.
told him that Mr.. Mckinley brought
in a cavsat in the Nichols case. and
that he. Akerly. threw 1t into the waste
basket and did not file It as directed.
James Hopkins. the present deputy
register OF wills. testified that he had
made diligens search for the caveat,
bu. was unable to find 1t among the
archives CT the office. An adjournment
was taken until Saturday. when the
testimony Of Attorney W. W. Watson
will be hsard. Attorneys Hulslander &
Nosburg represent James Nichols and
Attorney r. II. Holsate the will.
Will Re Attacked.
When DR.. Nichols died ne left prop
erty valued at upwards Of $4,000. II
James Nichols succeeds in getting the
court to allow him to file the caveat as
Of Oct. 5. 1856, he will make an effort
to have the will set aside on the ground
that his father was not Of sound mind
when the will was made and that he
was subject to undue influence.
Attorney B. F. Akerly was seen by a
Tribune reporter after the hearing yes
terday and he denied in emphatic terms
that he had thrown the caveat into the
waste basket when It was brought to
him TO file. He said that on Oct. s, 1886,
the Nichols will was admitted to pro-
bate and day or two later the caveat
in question was brought to the Office by
NJ McGinley. He told him that 1t was
too late. as the will had been admitted
TO probate and that other steps would
have to be taken.
Caveat Was Not Filed.
The caveat was not filed for the rea-
son that it would do no good TO take
such action with regard to 1t at that
time. He placed It carefully among the
papers OF the office after calling Regis
ter Athertons attention to II, and 1t was
among the papers Of the office when he
severed his relations with Mr.. Atherton
a few months later
DR.. Nichols was the husband Of Mrs.
Sarah Nichols, whose will has also been
now awaits the decision Of Register
Hopkins.