New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-18
THE DE HAAS WILL CONTEST.
NO CHANGE IN THE DOCUMENT SINCE
THE ARTIST MARRIED MISS TUCKER.
ALI. THE PROPERTY LEFT TO THE CHILDREN
AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FIRST WIFE
THE YOUNG WIDOW APPEARS BEFORE
SURROGATE FITZGERALD AS
A CONTESTANT.


A CONTESTANT.
An interesting contest over the will of Maurits
F. H. De Haas the well-known marine artist, came
nm before Surrogate Fitzgerald yesterday. in which
the Surrogate reserved decision. after hearing the
arguments on both sides Mr. De Haas died last
November coon after his marriage 10 Alice PreDe
Tucker a sister of Preble Tucker. the reiormer'
Mr. De Haas more than seventy years Ola al
the time of the wedding, while his bride. VINO was
his second wife, was a young woman. The mar
rage took place last May and the couple went
on an extended trip. returning in the faII MI De
Haas was taken Ill on November -, ana dled 'h'ee
DAYS later Soon after will was offered ior pro
bate by his son, Mauriis +. II. De Haas, Jr Inc
VIII was In the handwriting of mis- father. and was
da,ea June % 1885 In 1t Mr. De Haas left all his
property 10 his wife. Catherine Ann; on her death
u 10 10 his children There are also TWO oausH-
ters 1t again provides that his executIX sen an
his personal and real property and invest the pro-
ceeds IN United States bonds. The Catherine Ann
named in the will the artists first wlie VINO
died in 1881 and the estate, amounting 10 $''V"'
was claimed by the children under the VIII. lbs
would entirely shut out Alice Preble Tucker De
Haas the present widow. from any participation IN
,hs estate and she brought the contest
Charles II. Skinner was the first witness caIcd 10
nrove the will lie had faint recollection OF the
artist having come into one OF the studios IN inc
came building where he was located. at No. 81 West
vii. They went into one of the other studios and
the e. Mr. Skinner says. he aihxed ms name 70 me
paper which lie supposed was viii ne saiu ne
ronld not recollect whether the artists signature
was the will at the time or whe'her rn ~ Us
however that the signature was aftxed while thcy
were stlI in the studio He said that me signature
of the witnesses and the signature OF the testatoI
were in different inks Seymour L. Guy. an ARTIST
with studio at the same place VINO , nau Lax S"on sn
one OF the subscribing witnesses, was equaliy ma.
about the crcumsances remembering n s se nn der
The IMPRESSION that De Haas said 1t was his Will
The remaining subscribing witness, K W. huo-
Maurits F H. De Haas tr. the son of the testa ar
Also artist testified tnar ne Su n sDe and they
looked over the papers Mrs. DE HAAS ne salu
found the VIII IN an enTeop ,, '' IN his pocket and
when she asked for it back he refused 10 give IT,
Mrs Alice Preblo Tucker De Haas then called
for the contestant She corroborated me stoiy ~
the former witness about the finding OF the Will
but said she was under the impression that there
another paper In the envelope ~hlcn, 10Y, ,n
that she had retained the envelope. although young
DE Haas says she it to him. ana that she TOOK
the fact that the other side had produced the en-
velope She testified to the fact OF her marriage
and said that the children were opposed 10 H. ana
did ali they could TO prevent il. Mrs De Haas is
slender handsome young woman, and was suffering
brother. Preble Tucker was her attorney.
Her ccunse moved 70 dismiss on the GROUND "a, ha,
that the witnesses refused that the testator
edged the signature Of the testator. or that the
witnesses had signed in the presence OF each other
This motion denied. the Surrogate holding that
prima facle case had been made out by the pro-
pOnen,s.
Edgar Tucker. the father Of the contestant. was
placed on the stand to prove. counsel said. that
when Mr.. De Haas asked for the hand OF his
daughter. ne said that he would make all necessary
provision for her and that the artist under the
Impression that the fact Of his marriage agar. was
enough In itself to repeal the provisions Of the first
will and give his widow dover right in the estate
This testimony was held by the Court 10 he IN
admissible.
The legal objections to the will were then argued
by Prebe Tucker He contended that this was not
the last will and testament Of the alleged testator
and was not designed By him. He maintained
that II was INVALID because at suspended The
power Of absolute ownership In the property
personal and the power of alienation OF the
the continuance and until Inc Termination OF
more than two lives In being at the time Of
the death Of the alleged testator": thai there was
no person living of the name Of Catherine Ann De
Haas that the provisions OF the will obnoxious
In that the property was left the widow in one
clause for life and In the next she was ordered to
sen II and turn 1t into securities stated and also
that 1.-THE will drawn TO meet only the con-
tIngency Of the death OF the alleged esaor prior
that Of his wife therein named and said wife ma wing
died prior to the deceased the state OF conem
plated In the will cannot arise and would be invalid
under that state OF facts"