The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-03-08
PLANT WILL CASE CLOSED
n DECISION NOT DUE IMMEDI-
4TELY.
VIII Probably be Given I'm "a Few Weeks
Features Developed at the Hearing
Eighty Years to $3.50, 200, 900.

Margaret Plant against Lynde Harri-
son, Morton f. Plant, Robert G. Erwin
and George M. Tilley, the executors of
the will of the late Henry B. Plant
which was commenced before Judge
Leventritt on the 18th of January, has
just been closed, and the usual sum
ming up was made by Mr. Parsons for
the plaintiff and by Lewis Cass Led
yard for the defendant executors. The
formal briefs upon the law points will
be laid in later, and it will be probably
several weeks before decision will be
rendered.
The claims of the plaintiff, with a
synopsis of the evidence offered in her
behalf, have been fully published in the
newspapers.
The defendants produced upon the
stand, as expert lawyers from Connect
icut to reply to the three experts called
by the plaintiff, Hon. Lewis Sperry, of
Hartford, formerly member of congress
from the Hartford district and senior
member of the law firm of Sperry &
|
Litci1field, who has been a probate
judge for many years and who is chair
man of the commission on the revision
of statutes; Hon. Charles Phelps, Of
Rockville, the present attorney general
of the state Of Connecticut, and Hon.
Samuel Fessenden, of Stamford, who
has been for many years state attorney
for Fairfield county.
These four experts fatty contradicted
the claim of the plaintiff that under the
laws of Connecticut the DEGREES of
court of probate can be collaterally at
| tackled. They state in substance that
the courts of probate in Connecticut
have the power to determine whether
a deceased person was domiciled at the
time of his decease in the probate dis
trict over which the judge presides, and
that, having once judicially determined
that question, the finding of the resi-
denoe of the deceased person by the
court can only be attacked subsequent
| ly by proper appeal taken in the
manner provided by the statutes to the
superior court, which court is, in Con-
necticut, under such circumstances, an
appellate probate court. They assert
that in this case, If Margaret Plant de-
sired to raise the question of the domi-
cile Of Henry B. Plant after the decree
of the court of probate was passed, her
only remedy was by appeal to the SUI
perior court for New Haven county.
Messrs. Morton f. Plant, Erwin, Har-
rison and Tilley positively contradicted
all the important statements of the
plaintiff in relation to the probating of
the will and the domicile of Mr.. Plant
at the time of his decease. They all
testified that he was present three
times on the 18th and 29th of June, 1899
while the proceedings for the probating
of the will were in progress, and that
she took part in suggesting evidence to
be presented to the court to show that
Henry B. Plant was domiciled in New
Haven when he executed the last codi-
Gil to his will, and In which he soemnly
described himself as a resident of New
Haven. They produced deed executed i
by Henry B. Plant and Margaret Plant
of some property in Nova Scotia, exc
cuted June 81, 1899, in which Mr.. Plant |
was described as a resident of New Ha-
ven. In several other important partic-
ulars the four defendants contradicted |
the plaintiff and her witnesses.
The evidence of these defendants up
on these points and in relation to the
purchase of the house in New Haven by
Mr.. Plant was corroborated by several
Independent witnesses who knew of the
transaction in June 1899, and who
heard declarations made by Henry P.
Plant and by the plaintiff, Margaret
Plant
The plaintiff went upon the stand in
rebuttal, and denied some of the evil
dence offered by the defendant execu-
tors, but she did not contradict several
important bits of testimony that were
offered by the defendants and their
The defendant executors, under exam
ina ton and lengthy cross examination,
all stated that they considered it their
duty, as executors of Mr.. Plant to see
to it that his will and wishes were car
ried out, and that ii was their absolute
duty to defend the provisions Of the will
against the attacks made by the plain
tiff. They produced all records, CORE
spondence, etc, that was called for by
the plaintiff, and stated that they were
ready to render a full accounting of all
that they had done, and of all the re-
ceipts and expenditures made by them,
to any court having final jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
The attention of Morton Plant was
called, in his cross-examination, to the !
fact that If the widow can obtain, as [
she hopes and wishes, $7,000000 from
hat portion of the estate which may
De declared intestate, he Morton Plant I
would be entitled to recover $4,000, 900, !
md in reply to this suggestion he stated =,
hat, Notwithstanding that fact, he had ,
given his word as had the plaintiff, to
lis father that he was satisfied with
he provision made, and that he pro- :
POSED to keep his word with his father. :
This manly admission that he could not
,e induced or tempted, even for the /
AXE of so large a sum. to violate his
elected much favorable com
nent from all who heard it. e
There were no sensational develop a
nents or incidents connected with the c
rial, The legal questions involved in
he case, raising many important ques- II
ion of state and federal law, are COM n
licated and novel II
By the will of Plant $50, 600 is left to T
he widow and the same yearly income n
o his only child Morton Freeman f,
liant, and the rest of the estate is tied
p till the youngest of the children of