Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1901-03-15
GOOD ENOUGH TO PROBATE.
4 VIII That Had Been Torn to
Shreda Was Held to Have
Legal Validity.

It is probable that a whole volume,
and a very interesting one at that,
might be composed of the freaks of
legal evidence in will cases. says the
New York Tribune. The evidence is
often purely documentary, hence the
paradoxes which arise from time to
time in it's Interpretation. IF ever
such a volume comes to be published
it will surely be incomplete if the fol-
lowing case, told of John Corwin, of
the firm of Harris, Corwin & Gun
nison, is left out:
"The testatrix," says Mr.. Corwin,
"died IN Brooklyn four or five years
ago, and it devolved upon me, as her
lawyer, to find and probate her will.
In trunk I found an envelope con-
tanning number of very small pieces
of paper, on both sides of which was
writing. Inside the flap of that en-
velope was written: s"This will is all
here in the handwriting of the tes-
tatrix.
"You must remember that these
scraps of paper were very small in
deed. The paradox is this, that the ex-
treme smallness of the scraps was an
evidence that this torn paper was the
last will and testament of the deceased
The law recognizes tearing as one
method by which testator may re-
woke a will, and the intention to revoke
is presumed in a testator who so tears
one. But if contrary intention can
be proved by another act done at the
same time, then the tearing of the viii
| does not revoke it. Now in this case the
words: This will is all here,' clearly
showed the testatrix meant those
scraps of paper to be regarded as hel
will; it remained to be proved that she
so meant at the time when she tore the
paper. If she had torn the paper at one
moment, intending by that act to re-
woke the will, and had subsequently
| written these words without witnesses
Or other legal formality, meaning tc
revive the force of the revoked viii
| then the latter act was legally invalid
and the will could not be probated
Surrogate Abbott took this view.
"My contention. was that the writins
on the flap of the envelope was, in tech.
meal language, a part of the same res
gesta as the tearing of the will. / ar.
gued that if the testatrix had torn thai
paper at one time and put it in that en-
| ve.ope at another some of the pieces
small as they were, must surely have
| become lost in the interval. The ex-
treme minuteness of the pieces, coupled
with the fact that not one piece was
missing, was my evidence that the tear
ing and the putting into that envelope
were one res gesta. The presence OF
every piece proved by taking shee
of glass covered with white of egg ani
carefully reconstructing the whole
sheet of paper upon it, laying eacf
piece with the same side to the glass a:
it's fellows. In this way 1 was able t.
present the will in legib.e shape. Its
physical completeness established m!
point to the surrogate's satisfaction
the pieces in the envelope and the writ
ing ON the flap were one res gesta wa:
in my favor. And so I succeeded in pro
batting that WILL
To the lay mind the mystery of tn
tearing of the will remains no less in
teresting than the curious legal evi
dence of its validity. People who max
wills VIGOROUSLY indulge in strang
fancies at times and it may be that thi
woman resorted to the expedient o
tearing up the will precisely becaus
that was one of the last things which
anyone who wished to preserve the viii
would be likely to do with it and. conse
quently, no one who wished to steal tn
will would be likely to look for it in, al
envelope containing only minut'
scraps of paper.
|