New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-17
nv THE BROOKLYN COURTS.
o,.rrp STATEMENTS MADE IN A SUIT
OVER 4 LIFEINsURANCE POLICY.
, MOTION MADE 70 SET THE JUDGMENT FOX liiH
PLAINTIFF AsIDE-IT Is ALLEGED THAI
HE IMPERsoNATED LOUIS MEL
SINGER AND MADE HIMSELF
THE BENEFICIARY.

,,.,ioa Van Wyck, OF the Supreme Court mas
under advlsement motion to set asite '"'e
an tho ground OF surprise and newly disco'ereu e,
,orca IN the suit Of Wolfhard Steiner against 'he
national Life Association. OF Hartford The state
ran,s made by counsel on the motion develop some
roor allegations The plaintiff brought suit on
r,ucv for $3.50 alleged have been taken out on
the life OF Louis Messenger ne being the penehciars'
The case was tried before Justice Smith, ana inc
n,llcy was introduced In evidence linen II "ds
declared that there was written In the poncy a' '"e
,re6c,arv not the name os Steiner. but the estate
=, Messenger The plaintiff claimed however. that
tha nol,cy introduced was not the original one ana
evidence was given to support MS claim 'nat lie
had been mentioned in the original policy as the
bene fciary The jury brought In verdit OF >N ior
the plaintiff . -,
Mr. Lovett the counse for the company. in max
SING the motion to set aside the Judgment said that
on the original application for the poiicy the name
of Wolfhard Steiner was written In pencli, as '''1
brother-in-law OF Mesinger. When the plaintih was
asked on the trial of the what title ne had u
make claim for the Insurance he said that Messenger
had told him that he wished him to attend the funeral
and nav all the expenses. Mary Wagner. the sister
OF the dead man. testified. however that she haa
paid the expenses. Further in proof of loss, the
plaintiff was described cousin OF the dead man.
In his testimony he said he distant relative
Counsel said that he had affidavit OF Meisngers
daughter that he relative at all lie also
had an affidavit Of another daughter of MESSENGER,
ave- and who deposed that for nine years her father
was Ill nearly all the time She also ieposed that
Counsel "G said that the defendant alleged and
pected 70 be abe to prove that me pi@intil rsprs
sented himself 10 the agents OK the company az
the policy. signed Mr. Meisnger's name ard put
his own name In as beneficiary.
In opposing the motion David Hrshhe.d sad that
there was no truth In TIE allegations MADE py o rne
pany was engaged in sucking the blood out OF me
masses OF me poor people ana Duitans ma sbo,r
custom to attack policies on the ground OF
fraud. and to refuse TO pay their victims Counsel
known Mr. Meisnger for years. and i was quite
common thing for him to talk about his policy and
say that II in Steiner's favor.
BRIBERY TALKED OF IN A WILL. CASE.
Surrogate Abbott heard testimony yesterday in
the contest over the will OF Lena Brunor. The
I night Mrs. Brunor's property and the other
litgations which grew out of II have occupied the
attention OF the court for several months. The
contest has had several hearings before the Surro-
gate and the one which began yesterday
continuation Of the last hearing IN December. Au-
gust Ioewenberge- OF No. i25 East ghty- hrst-st
New-York a brother Of the testatrx. IL trying to
break the VIII. which gives all her property TO her
husband Martin BrunOr. He alleges that Brunor
unduly Influenced her make the viii. He says
that he III treated her. and that IT by threats
and brutal treatment that she was finally compelled
TO viii all her property 10 her husband. Mrs
Rrunor committed suicide. and It H. alleged that 1t
wa. her husbands cruel treatmca; that drove her
TO do u.
All these charges are denied by Martin Brunor.
~. ,ropon.n, He SAYS that he always treated his
/ wife kindly and that IL on account OF the way
In which per relatives worried her that she lefi All
nor uronerf, 10 him She said a much. he said, to
/ IN. lawyers who drew up the VII
sensation Mas created at the beginning OF Inc
hearing when Mr. Cohn. counsel for Mr.. Brunor
SAL ,htt the counsel the other side hid stated
that efforts had been made by Mr. Bruror 10 hriAr
c,rt,tu witnesses for the contestant. Nj. Conn
said thai nc wanted It to hc understood that ne hai
| nothing 10 do with any such endea'oT. ana ms
client declared that all such statements were un,
true II they could be proved TO be true he would
| consent that the will be- denied probate In an
sw.r the counsel on the other side replied tnat ne
had been told that Mr. Brunor had gwen money 10
"A certain mar % be given TO one or the witnesses
for the contestant The witness refused the money
made the statement AM he expected him 70 Se
nr.s.nf i'm court The Surrogate said he WAS sure
that counsel on ether side would not nave any tilnS
| TO do with any attempt 70 bride witness. The
hearing continued.