Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1899-06-29

Russell WILL CASE.
Demands tor John Russell's Widow 9
Liberal Allowance, and Says 1t Is
Due Her.

Demands tor John RusselPs Widow a
Liberal Allowance, and Says 1t Is
Due Her.
CAMDEN, June 81, Especially Colonel
| Robert g. Ingersoll, the we'll know ag-
nostic, was the star attraction in the
Court of Chancery this morning and took
| part in the argument in the case of Lottie
Russell. the widow of the late John Rus
sell, a former wealthy ship builder of
| Cumberland county. The defendant in
the suit is Benjamin Russell, a nephew
OF the deceased and one of the executors
of the will OF John Russell. The suit is
brought to recover the widows rights
under the will, and the amount due her
under an ante-nuptial agreement.
In ad 1ition to the $1,000 he agreed to
give her by the ante-nuptial agreement,
he gave to her 81 800, in stock of a corpor-
alton. Russell died on July 20, 1897, and
within six months the executor paid to
the trustee of Mrs. Russell the sum of
5000. Of this amount the widow re-
ceived $500 on account in December, 1897.
Ex Judge Pancoast, counsel for the
defendant, claimed that the complainant
wants to get rid of the ante-nuptial agree
ment and the will. He contended that
| there could not be two agreements, and
both showed and argued that the ante
nuptial agreement should stand and not
the agreement providing for liberal
allowance. He said that the court could
not set aside the will and could not give
any relief under the statutes in the State,
/ y1nr fbao WI ,aI-o xx,;1
John Russell is dead.
Colonel Ingersoll in reply said that ne
could agree with Judge Pancoast. in but
one thing and that is that John Russell is
dead. For hundreds of years the courts
of this country and England have zeal
ously guarded the right of dowers. When
she signed the ante-nuptial agreement,
she knew the value of the estate and that
the ante-nuptial agreement was not suffi.
cient in proportion to the value of the
estate. Mr.. Pancoast implies by his argu-
ment that it was bargain between two
| sharpers and John Russell, saying look
out for YOURSELF The law says that he
shall meet her with perfect candor, and
he must tell the truth. IF we were to
rely upon what Benjamin Russell says,
as to the values, then he was very gener-
GUS. The question now is the amount in
the ante-nuptial contract and if the agree
ment is proportionate to the value of the
estate.
"The defendants in the case have never
showed what Mr.. Russell was worth.
Mr.. Pancoast has expressed that there
could be no love at rs years, but I hope
the same fate will not reach Mr.. Pancoast.
NOW Mr.. Russell did say that he
would give 5000, and would make a
liberal provision for her in his will. Let
us admit that there was no ante-puptial
contract, and no oral statement to pro-
vide literally for her in the will. Then
we are entitled to our dover in the real
estate. Has the Court of Equity a right
| to decide the meaning of liberal allow
ance?' We are not to import meanness
into the words; we are not to import
generosity, if he has any. The word
reasonable is the bone of contention in
all courts, and numerous definitions of
the word have been made. There is no
word in the English language that has
caused more contention. Now we come
to the word liberal. 1t is hard word to
define? A man loses a pock etbook con-
tanning 5000, and ii is found by boy.
The man gives him cents; is that liberal?
There is not a person in the world who
would say so. If man loses pocket
book containing 81 and gives the finder
half of it, everybody would say that man
was liberal. The word liberal means a
little more than the law can compel you
to do.
"A man can be just and honest, and
never get the reputation of being liberal,
| by doing what the law compelled him to
do, or what his contract called for. If he
had given her one-third of the estate,
what the law says; but in this case, where
he says Il will provide literally for you
in my will he has not done it in accord
ance with the contract. The woman, at
the very least, is entitled TO her dover.
SIN all the cases where an ante-nuptial
contract was attached, I have been un-
able to find one where the disproportion
was so great. do net know of any case
where there was so much deceit. The
property, as fixed by themselves, is
worth at least 100000. The dispropor-
ton is too great, and it is for the Court to
construe what liberal allowance meant.
The decision of the court is reserved.
Millions Given Away.
1t is certainly gratifying to the public
to know of one concern in the land who