Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-03-25
JUDGE Hollis WILL
Decision Of Court of Appeals Reversed
Today.
REMANDED FOR A new TRIAL
Action of the United States Su-
preme Court.
HISTORY OF THE CASE

The United States Supreme Court today
rendered decision in the famous Holt will
case The court reversed the judgment of
the Court of Appeals Of the District of CO.
lumbia. and remanded the case to that
court with directions to reverse the judg
ment of the Supreme Court of the District
OF Columbia. and to remand the cause to
that court with instructions to grant a
new trial The effect of this action is gen.
orally understood to be to make effective
the mysterious VIII which came to light
after Judge IToit's death.
The of Josephine II. Throckmorton
and Luke Devlin, plaintiffs in error, agt.
Washington Holt ct al, was a proceeding
in the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia for the purpose of proving al
legged will of the late Joseph Holt, a dis
tinguished lawyer and ex-Postmaster Gen.
erai. and for many years judge advocate
general of the United States army, who
died at the age of eighty-seven in this city,
August |. 1894. after residence of many
years I'm Washington. The proceedings re-
suited in the rejection of the paper on the
ground that 1t was not the will of Judge
Holt. but was a forged document. and
Judgment refusing probate was entered
upon the verdict of the jury.
The proponents of the will appealed to
the Court of Appeals of the District but
before the appeal was brought on for ar
gument Miss Hynes one of the legatees
named in the WILL withdrew her appeal
The Judgment of the Supreme Court upon
the appeal of the other proponents was
subsequently affirmed by the Court of APP
peafs, and the proponents of the paper,
excepting Miss Hynes, brought the case
I" the United States Supreme Court by
writ of error.
History of the Case.
Judge Holt died, leaving no relatives
tharo
Of the state of Indiana Mississippi and
Kentucky and of this city. all being re-
spondents in this appeal. He had been
twice married. and both wives had died
long prior to his own demise. He had no
children.
Immediately upon his death his nephews
w ashington D. Holt and William G. Ster-
rett, came to his late residence in this city
and made a strict search for a will, but
none found
Then the nephews above named and John
w. Holt filed a petition in the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, holding
special term for Orphans Court business
in which the appointment of an admins
traitor was asked, the National Safe De-
post. Savings and Trust Company of the
District being appointed administrator. Up
to August ". 1893. nothing out of the ordi-
nary occurred in the administration of the
estate. but on that date sealed envelope
addressed To the register of wills in this city
was received by that officer. This envelope
WIS IOuHu TO contain a Will signed Dy j.
Holt. dated February Z, 1873, and on the
paper appeared what purported to be the
signatures of Ellen Il. z. Sherman, Ulysses
;. Grant and W. T. Sherman as witnesses.
BY this paper Judge Holt gave one-half Of
his estate to Elizabeth Hynes and the other
half TO Josephine Holt Throckmorton. Liz
Zie HyneS was related to the first Mrs. Holt
and Miss Throckmorton was Judge Hollis
gCddaughter, her mother being the cousin
OF his second wife.
This mysterious will bore signs OF mutila-
ton by burning and tearing, and there was
no seal on 1t.
Justice Peckham's Reasoning.
The decision of the United States
Supreme Court today was handed down
by Mr. Justice Peckham. The decision
says the court below erred in per-
uniting witnesses to give an opinion to
the genuineness OF handwriting founded
partly upon knowledge and familiarity with
the legal attachments, the style and compo-
sition of the individual whose handwriting
was in controversy and as corroboratiye of
their opinion from knowledge of handwrit-
ing alone There was no evidence. the JUS
tiCe said. that the testator either himself
performed or that he authorized the acts
Of mutilation, and IT is thought that no
presumption that he did arise from
the fact that the will was not found among
his papers and the appearance of the will
whenaTeceiVed by the register furnished
no such presumption
There being no presumption of revoca-
Ut u ILOlil tue VI the paper, ana
the onus being on those who assert its
revocation. can the written or oral declara-
items of the testator, made subsequently to
the execution of the will, and tending to
show the existence of another will not
otherwise proved, or tending to show tho
state of his affections for his relatives and
an alleged change in his feelings toward
the relatives of one of the legatees, though
not toward the legatee herself be admit ed
for the purpose OF asking the jury to infer
either that the testator himself mutilated
and burned with the intention to revoke the
will or directed the acts of mutilation and
burning in order to accomplish such revo-
cation. The justice suggests:
Here is simply the case of an inference
sought TO. be drawn that the testator did
the act and with the intent to revoke the
will because of his making certain declara-
tiuns as to Will, and also because he had
expressed friendly feelings toward some of
his relatives and feelings the reverse of
friendly toward the father of one Of the
legatees
Declarations Not Admirable.
These declarations are regarded as no
more admissible for the purpose Of infer
ring revocation than for the purpose of
inferring the forgery of the will A revoca-
tiOn must be shown by evidence Of an act
of the deceased or under his direction
which would be sufficient to show the fact,
or the instrument must have been found
among the papers Of the deceased mutt
lated and torn or otherwise defaced and
under such circumstances that the fact Of
revocation might be presumed.