The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-11-11
RICHARDSON RIoH WHEN HE DIED.
Evidence or This Adduced to Prove an Attempt
to Derraud the widow.

~ N'eS"s
Homer w. Nichols, cashier of r. II. Bissell &
Co., brokers, who had acted personally and
through his firm for the late Joseph Richardson
for a number of years, was examined yesterday
before Surrogate Fitzgerald in the contest of Mr..
Richardson's will. Mr.. Nichols was called by
the Richardson children to show that when the
last will. made on April "a, 1897. was executed
Mr.. Richardson was not in a fit mental condi-
ton to make a will. 1t Is this will which gives
the widow about a third of the estate. and TO
which the two children, George and Della, object
in their desire to establish q will Of 1894 which
leaves all the estate to them. In the cross
examination yesterday De Lancey Nlcoll and
Mayo w. Hazeltine, on behalf Of the widow.
tried to show bias on the part Of Nichols. and
that Richardson soon before and soon after
making the last will was engaged in financial
transactions that established his sanity beyond
Among the transactions referred to was an
important one in the stock Of the Westchester
| OF Richardson with the firm Of r: II. Bissell &
Go. were produced. and Mr.; Nichols was exam.
,Rps. in m dstfil Of So RIs6a41so tas i items 6 fEr A ihS ia y
1t was said that the firm held about $500. 900 in
securities belonging, to Mr., Richardson. Aside
| from this Mr.. Nichols conduc, ed business indi-
vidually for Richardson. and he said that at
about. this time he had personally about 500.
details OF his personal transactions with Rich
ardson. the witness said that he kept no books
| that would show them. some evidence OF them,
he said, was in Richardson's last check book.
which the witnes had.
Mr.. Nichols said that he had charge OF Mr..
Richardson's affairs as his agent, and he did not
know that Richardson had any other agent.
line OF examination, and Mr.. Nicoll, before re.
plying, requested that the witness be excluded
from the room. After the witness had left he
stated: 81 want to show the close Relationship
OF this witness to Mr.. Richardson. i want TO
show that he knew Of the existence OF money
and securities belonging to his client deposited
In various places. intend to show that while
In the possession of this information he at,
tempted to defraud my client by getting her to
AXE $50, 900 in settlement of her claim"
The Surrogate held that the line OF eNamina.
ton was admissible, and evidence was elected
to show that about the time the witness had
told Mrs. Richardson her husband was in
solvent and that she had better take $50, 900 In
settlement of any claim. Richardson held con.
siderably over half a million. in securities.
Counsel for the children insisted that the sol,
vency of Richardson was not pertinent. and
Lawyer Hazcltinc said:
"Thc witness hns testified that on April IL
last he told Mrs. Richardson that her husband
was insolvent. Yet, 1t now appears by his own
words. that he procured an order for the trans,
fer OF a large quantity of bonds on April 10. /
think this goes directly TO the question Of credi'
bility."
The Surrogate ruled with Mr.. Hazeltine. and
the examination proceeded. The witness said
that besides the $500. 600 deposited in securities
with Bissen & Co. and others with himself, on
April II Richardson had $4,000 with the
Union Trust Company. The case went over tc
Monday,