The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-03-05
END OF THE FAMOUS
NICHOLS CASES
They Have Been Before the Courts OF
the County for Twelve Years.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Sustnins Decision of Register of Wills
and Court of This County Refusing
James Nichols IA Rehearing in Mat
ter of Request for n Citation to
Compel Other Nichols Heirs to Pro-
duce the Will of Their Mother.

After twelve years of litigation there
has come an end to the multitude of
suits growing out of the estates left by
DR.. Hiram Nichols, of Clark's Green,
and his wife, Sarah Nichols. No suits
ever instituted in this county were
fought with greater vim and determi-
nation than those growing out of the
disposition of these estates and the bit
terness they caused is shown in the
long line of slander suits, etc, that
have followed in the wake of the pro-
ceedings.
DR. Hiram Nichols was one of the
best known men west of the mountain
during his life and when he died he
left a considerable estate which he dis
posed of by will. He left surviving
him his wife, Sarah Nichols, and the
following children: Asa A. Nichols,
James Nichols, Mrs. James Barrett.
now of Binghamton, wife of Horace e.
Barrett, an reconnaissance of Lacka
wanna county: Mrs Mary Davis, wife
of n. S. Davis, eX-county superintend-
ent of schools, and Miss Flora Nichols.
All of these children We're remem-
bered in the will save James Nichols,
who for many years was a resident of
Green
Soon after his fathers death he be-
gan proceedings to have the will set
aside, alleging that the will offered for
probate, which disinherited, him, was
not his fathers will and If it was that
undue influence had been used to get
him to sign it, He was unsuccessful in
his efforts. While these proceedings
We're pending James Nichols mother,
Mrs. Sarah Nichols, died. 1t was al
legged that she left no will, but this
was dened by James Nichols, who said
his mother did leave a will favoring
him but that the other heirs stole or de-
strOyed it.
EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS.
James Nichols then began an action
in ejectment which resulted in a decree
being handed down by the court giving
to the plaintiff an undivided one-fifth
interest in the estate of his mother
the same as was allowed to the other
children. This ejectment suit was
fought step by step as was the subse-
quent partition proceedings to divide
the property. A price was fixed on
the land and it was agreed that the
heir who was willing to give the great
est sum above that price should become
the owner. In accordance with the
terms of that agreement Mrs. Mary
Davis. Mrs. Jennie Barrett and Miss
Flora A. Nichols purchased the land for
$27 900 and the money was paid into
court and distributed among the heirs.
on May u, 1892, James Nichols filed
a petition in the registers of Wills Of
flee for citation to the other heirs to
produce the will of his mother, Sarah
Nichols, for probate. After hearing the
testimony the register dismissed the
proceedings on September 8, 1892.
James Nichols alleged that the will of
his mother was nailed to the bottom of
a trunk and that it was removed by
one of his sisters and was either de-
Stroyed or in the possession of one of
the heirs. He failed to sustain this
statement. No appeal from the decis-
ion of the register was taken, but
about year after the partition pro-
Ceedngs We're ended on May H. 1895,
James Nichols asked the register of
Wills for a rehearing with reference to
| the proceedings in relation to the pro-
| duction of the will of Sarah Nichols
| for probate. on August IA of the same
| year the register handed down this de-
| tlSlOn. AlleI careful review Oh all
| the testimony before us, it is not suf-
| fiCient to warrant us to change the
| decision heretofore made by the regis
ter of wills in these proceedings, there
| fore the prayer of the petitioner is re-
| fused"
From this decision an appeal was
taken to the county courts and was
| there dismissed and an appeal to the
superior court followed.
| ARGUED IN JANUARY.
At the January term of the Superior
court in this city the case was argued
| by Attorney A. A. Vosburg for James
| Nichols and eX-Congressman Lemue
| Amerman for the other heirs. In max
| ing his argument to the court Mr.
| Amerman said that it was the last link
| In long chain of litigation and ir
| parting with the case he felt that he
was parting with an old friend. 1t was
| a case, he said, that had helped to feed
and clothe him and other members OF
the LackaWanna bar for upwards OF
| ten years. He felt, however, that il
| was time the case was finally deter
| mine that something of the estate
| might be left to the heirs. He charac-
| terized the proceedings as an effort tC
| beCloud the title of the land sold ir
| pursuance to the partition proceedings
AT Williamsport last Monday the Su.
| perior court dismissed the appeal OF
| Nichols and sustained the decision OF
the court of this county. This means