Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1901-03-14
TORN WILL WAS GOOD.
Some Curiosities of Testamentary
Law in New York

1t is probable that a whole volume,
and a very interesting one at that,
might be composed of the freaks of
legal evidence N will cases. The
evidence is often purely documen-
tary, hence the paradoxes which arise
from time to time in its interpreta-
ton. If ever such d volume comes to
be published it will surely be i'm
complete if the following case, told by
John Corwin, of the firm of Harris,
Corwin & Gunnison, is left out:
THE testatriX," says Mr.. Corwin,
died in Brooklyn four or five years
ago, and it developed upon me, as a
lawyers, to find and probate her will.
In trunk | 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: This will is all
here in the handwriting and with
the signature of the testatriX.
"You must remember that these
scraps OF paper were very small, in
deed The paradox is this: that the
extreme smallness of the scraps was
the evidence that this torn paper was
| the last will and testament of the
| deceased. The law recognizes tear
! ing as one method by which a testator
may revoke will, and the intention
to revoke is presumed in a testator
who so tears one. But of contrary
intention can be proved by another
act done at the same time, then the
tearing of the will does not revoke it.
Now in this case the words This
will is all here clearly showed that
| the testatrix meant those scraps of
paper to be regarded as her will; it
remained to prove 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 those words without wit
nesses or other legal formality, mean
| ing to revive the force of the revoked
will, then the later act was legally in
valid and the will could not be pro-
bated, Surrogate Abbott took this
view.
MY contention was that the writing
on the flap of the envelope was, in
technical language, d part of the same
res gesta as the tearing of the will
| argued that if the testatriX had torn
that paper at one time and put it ir
that envelope at another, some of the
pieces, small as they were, must sure.
| ly have become lost in the interval
| The extreme minuteness of the pieces
coupled with the fact that not one
! piece was missing, was my evidence
that the tearing and the putting into
that envelope were one res gesta.
The presence of every piece | proved
| by taking a sheet of glass covered
with white of egg and carefully re-
, constructing the whole sheet of paper
upon it, laying each piece with the
same side to the glass as it's fellows.
In this way l was able to present the
will in legible shape It's physical
completeness established my point to
the Surrogate's satisfaction, for the
presumption that the placing of the
| pieces in the envelope and the writing
on the flap were one res gesta was in
my favor. And SO | succeeded in pro-
| batting that will
To the lay mind the mystery of the
tearing of the will remains no less in
teresting than the curious legal evi-
dence of its -valIuIty. People who
make wills VIGOROUSLY indulge IN
strange fancies at times, and it may
be that was one of the last things
which anyone who wished to preserve
will would be likely to do with it,
and, consequently, no one who wished
to steal the will would be likely to
look for it in an envelope containing
minute scraps of ,paper.-New York
Tribune.