New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-11
SURROGATE FITZGERALD OVERRULEn
THE APPELLATE DIVISION HOLDS THAT wrrL
NESS WAS HARsHLY TREATED

THE APPELLATE DIVISION HOLDS THAT wr,
NESS WAS HARsHLY TREATED
When Mrs. Julia Ann Spratt, widow died =
October, 1893 her heirs found that she had left r..
wills containing absolutely contradictory provis,o
One was dated April a. 1898. and the other Nav =
1893. Mrs. Spratt seventyfour years old at n.
time Of her death, and all the heirs admitted th.
she was In full possession OF her senses The he,.
under the firstmade will asserted that Villa.
Nelson lie Page. the resduary legatee under ~.
second Will, who was the testators nephew and con-
fdential man Of business had unduly Influenced he,
In contest In the Surrogate's Court. judem.r.
was given by Surrogate Fitzgerald setting the MIN
OF May rs aside on the point raised. The Appelat.
Division OF the Supreme Court yesterday set asia.
that decision, and ordered that a jury in the an.
preme Court decide these two questions Was thu
paper of May e. 1893 the last will and testament A.
Julia Ann Spratt, and second, was such paper pro.
cured by fraud and undue influence by Mr. lie Pas.,
The court held that the examination OF Mr. L.
Page in the Surrogate's Court was unnecessar,Iv
harsh. The opinion says: Care must be taken NOT
to draw for that examination too severe Inference
against the witness. He required to ansvs,
explicitly whatever question put to him. hov
ever harsh might be the differences to be draw,
from his answer. He was not permitted to explain
his answers, although he made many efforts to do
so. nor was he permitted to tell fully any OF his
business transactions with Mrs. Spratt from which
these nferenceS were drawn, WHICH, as the Surr0.
gate says. show him in unenviabe light. Nehsp
was he permitted by independent evidence to ex.
plain any OF these transactions. When the conduct
OF a witness is attacked in such a case. ne should
ave given to him the very fullest opportunity ~
giving all the circumstances In this lie Pages
version was excluded. There is no evidence to
show that he exercised any control over Mrs Spratt
this time
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court yee.
terday handed down "A decision In the case Of Har.
mon Hendricks individually and as trustee. against
Albert Hendricks and others. The plaintiff is a
trustee under the will OF Charlotte Gomez. who died
in lsi9 Under her will special provision made
for the support Of her daughter, Matilda Gomez who
was insane. The latter was then In the Blooming.
dale Asylum, VIII re she died, aged ninety years In
1888 About 5000 OF the income provided for her
had accumula ted and the action In question was
brought TO settle the disposition Of that sum-
Ii was alleged that the accumulation belonged 10
the heirs Of Harmon Hendricks, brother Of MIRA
Gomez. and her resi1uary legatee. The referee who
heard the decided that the $4,000 did not In
Matilda Gomez. but undisposed OF ircome and
passed 20 Harmon Hendricks's heirs. judgment was
entered his report and an appeal was taken.
The Appellate Division he'd that no provision hav.
ing been made In the will for surplus income. the
entire income provided for Matilda Gomez vested 10
her and ordered judgment 10 he modified so 10
direct the payment of tho money to the admink-
traitor Of Matilda GOmez's estate, for dlstriburos
among her heirs a. law.