The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-06-28
soxxxs WILL CASE sUxxsD VI
Decision Reserved In MS. Jeanette ,,
Bonnsr's P~rsceedins.

Bonnsrs Preceodtng.
The contest Of the will Of Robert Bonner at
the instance Of Mrs. Jeanette +. Bonner In
behalf Of her two children by her deceased
husband. Andrew Allen Bonner. son OF Rob
ert, was concluded before Surrogate Fttxger-
aid yesterday with the summing up OF coun-
sci. The argument lasted all day. David Nc
Clure speaking for the contestins children
and John Z. Parsons upholdins the will.
Mr.. Mcclure argued that the mind Of the
testator was impaired by illness when he ex-
ecuted the will shortly before his death. While
there was no direct evidence to that effect.
he said 1t was shown by a number OF circum-
stances. such a. the latter DEF Tres Of Mr.. Bon
ner when III not to discuss Church. horse or
business. It had been shown. he said. that
Mr.. Bonner had promised Mrs. Jeannette +.
Bonner not 10 change 4 will he made In 1893.
which practically divided his state into four
parts. when Mira. Jeannette F. Bonner agreed
To sell out the interest OF her deceased hus-
band in the Ledger Monthly to his brothers.
Robert f. Bonner and Frederick Bonner. Not
outstanding this alleged agreement the tes-
tator had made the new will with the trust
provisions for the share OF his clients. Mr..
Mcclure said he did not mean IT TO be under
stood that he considered that Mr.. Bonner had
become a lunatic; but he believed Mr., Bonner
was in a condition to he unduly Influenced.
LAWYER Parsons said the case Of the con-
testantS in part rested on the contention that
Mr., Bonner had not been fair TO Mrs. Jeannette
+. Bonner. whereas II was shown that he had
treated her ami her children with the utmost
fairness. Why the charge Of influencing the
last will was made against Robert +. Bonner ne
could not understand, because the last will
left Robert f.. In substantially the same position
as the will Of 1905. 1t was shown. he said. that
the will was not the result Of hasty thought.
The testator had been in consultation with
Lawyer Frederick B. Van Worst for g long
time regar ding II. Mrs. Jeannette +. Bonner
had received about 100000 during the HE Oi
the testator through her husband. which had
practically come from Robert Bonner, while
the only daughter Of the testator.. Mrs. Francis
Forbes, had not received from him more than
$5O,OOO.
MIR. Parsons ascribed the contest to the selfish
ness of Mrs. Jeanette +. Bonner. He said that
the woman who asks the Surrogate to go to the
grave of the ~testator and say his will was the
result Of fraud had posed as a pool. weak ana
dcfenceless woman at one time and az another
IA a woman Of strong mind who would not sign
the agreement to sell the interest in the Ledger
Monthly until Robert Bonner had agreed not to
change his will. lie denied that Mr.. Bonner
had made such an agreement and also said that
Mrs. Jeanette +. Bonner had not in fact dis
posed Of all her interest In the Ledger property
but only in the publication. He explained that
the realty owned by the Bonner brothers IN the
Ledger partnership was now IN litigation; When
Mr. Parsons had asked her II she had told Robert
faithful to her. the lawyer said her answer was
that she could not remember. Mr.; Parsons
said that her evidence in that regard was evil
IDENTIFY false and being false in part IL should
be considered false as a whole; He said there
was nothing against Robert Edwin Bonner ex-
cent the suspicious Of Mrs. Bonner.
Surrogate Fitzgerald gave counsel two weeks
to submit briefs. reserving decision.