Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-04-06
TEsTAMENTARY sHREDS.

It is probable that a whole volumes
and yer undressing one at that might
lie composed of the freaks of legal evi~
dence in will cases. The evidence is OFT
I'll purely documentary; hence the para
ooxes Whic harise from time to time IN
its interpretation. If ever such vol-
ume comes to be published it will surely
be incomplete If the following case. told
by John Corwin, of the firm of Harris.
Corwin & Gunnison, is left out :
1.-The testatrix," says Mr.. Corwin, died
in Brooklyn four or five years ago, ana
it devolved upon me, as her lawyer, 10
find and probate her VIII. In trunk
l found an envelope containing NUM-
her Of very small pieces or paper on
tcth sides of which was writing. INSIDE
the flap of that envelope was wrltten'
This will israll here, in the handwriting
and with the signature of the testatrlx.
You will remember that these scraps
of paper were very small indeed. The
paradox is this, that the extreme SMALL
ness of the scraps was the evidence that
this torn paper was the last we'll ana
testament of the deceased. The law rec.
ognizes tearing as one method by which
a testator may revoke win, ana the
intention to revoke is presumed nm q
testator who SO tears one. But II con"
t,ary intention can be proved by anoth-
err act done at the same time. then the
tearing of the will does not revoke 1t.
Now, in this case the words. This Will
Ia all here clerly showed that the tes-
tatrix meant those scraps OF paper to
be regarded as her will; 1t 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 revoke the will, and had
subsequently written those words with-
out witnesses or other legal formality,
meaning to revive the force of the re-
voked will, then the latter act was lie.
gally invalid, and the will could not be
I'll obated. Surrogate ABBOTT took this
view.
my contention was that the writing
| on the flap Of the envelope was, in tech-
| r:cal language, part of the same res
| eesta as the tearing of the will. l arr
gued that if the testatrix had torn that
paper at one time and put it in that
| envelope at another, some of the pieces.
small as they were, must surely have be-
| come lost in the interval The extreme
| m;nuteness of the pieces, coupled with
| the fact that not one piece was missing.
was my evidence tndC Tie tearing anu
! the putting into that envelope were one
| res gesta. The presence Of every piece
/; proved by taking al sheet of glass COW
! cred with white of egg and carefully
reconstructing the whole sheet of paper
| upon 1t laying each piece with the same
side to the glass as its fellows. In this
| way I was able to present the will in
| !egible shape. Its 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 We're one res
sesta was in my favor. And so I sue
ceeded in probating that WILL"
To the lay mind the mystery of the
tearing of the will remains no less i'm
teresting than the curious legal evidence
Of its validity. People who make wills
rotoriOusly indulge in strange fancies at
times, and it may be that this woman
resorted to the expedient of tearing up
her will precisely because that was one
If the last things which anyone who
ished to preserve a will would be likely
tt do with 1t. and, consequently, no one
who wished to steal the will would be
l.l>el yto look fer It IN an envelope con-
tanning only minute scraps of PAPER
New York Tribune.