Waterbury Democrat., 1902-04-14
CH|PMAN MILL HEARING.
Attorney s. J. Marsh Tells of
 Drawing the Document

enced Her Husband to Leave Them Nothing-They Are Making q Stub born Fight to Have the Will Set Aside.
 The oft adjourned hearing on the contested will of the late Daniel L. Chipman took place to-day before judge James F. Huntington of Wood bury. For the accommodation of those interested it was held in the dis .ilet court room. The provisions of the will are substantially as follows: Io the Flrst M. F. church, S5,OOO; Si- lnoiisVllie M E. church, $1 ,OO0; Afri- can M- E. church, $1,00O; Jane Chip man, niece, $1,0O0; Timothy Chin man, nephew, $1,000; Edgar Chip man, q nephew, $2,000; the balance to oaran O-. widow. The will is signed Dy simeon G. Terry, William A. church and Finton J. Phelan. A O. alcll was later drawn up in which inc legacy bequeathed to Edgar is revoked , ana all the other bequests confirmed rms was signed by William Riether John L. Pierpont and Finton T. Phe- ian. This practically disinherited all testator's relatives. Attorney O'NeilI and Colonel Burpee appeared for the contestants and Williams and Cole for the Will. The estate is worth S114 ooo. Undue influence and mental in- capacity were alleged.
 Attorney Marsh was the first vii ness. He testified that he is 2 half brother of Mrs Chipman. the widow ana that he drew up the will in dis, pute. lie also drew up others nrior to the marriage of deceased and Mrs ollplian and witness was named ay- ecutor. lie denied a will was mada the morning of the marriage or that uay. lie thought one was drawn nm two years bsfore the marriage and inc present one about one and T half years after the marriage. Ha conId not say where the previous wills ara Ill all of them, he believed. Mrs Chin man was provided for. Tn one sba was left. he thought. S3.O0O Witness also drew up the codicil. MT Cbinman said nothing to him about if only +ba+ he wished to revoke the legacy 1aft Edgar. Soon after the marriage MT Chlpman transferred considerable bank stock to his wife.
 Mrs Chipman then took tbo stora oi,e sald her marriage took place Oc- louer I-' lS96; that she was then 31 and MT Chlpman "A. Her mother .,,. anu MT Chlpman were first cousins. Ihelf engagement was not long. Sha lnought not more than a day or two one visited MT Chipman the day nre- Vious to the marriage. She remained over night in the house and the mar rage took place about 7:3O o'clock in the morning. She denied that NTr Cnlpman could not be fo11nd tbat morning until after a chase for him or that he was found milking 2 cow It was admitted that he merely changed his collar and tie for inc mar rlage ceremony, remarking that if was merely few minutes for chano- ing a name. A woman named RacI- was housekeeper then.
 Regarding the transfer of hank stock to her, she said that Charles Prltchard was continually prompting him to transfer some of his Dronertv to her in order to escape the state tax. MT Pritchard used to tell Mir Chipman that he evaded the state tax by trans ferrlng $1O.O00 worth of property to his son and witness denied ever prompting or suggesting to him transfer of property to her. He never said anything to her about cutting off his relatives. The bank stock she was given consisted of 36 shares in the Waterbury Savings bank. She did not know it's value. she said. He kept the stock with his other papers of 1i<J, 1,o ,Ixx kept the key. She received the divi- dends, $45. on the stock, twice. but she gave MT Chipman the money and he kept it. This and mortgage for $4,0O0 on real estate on Chestnut ave nue was the only property he gave her, but i'll this mortgage she had $1,0O0 of her own money.
 The greater part of Mrs Chipman's evidence referred to her deposits in bank made subsequent to her marriage, the amount she had i'll bank before the marriage, the sum she now has, also mortgages and notes her husband had and left in his will, the amount of each. and in case of mortgages, where they were located, the nature of the proper ty, etc.
 Attorney F. L. Wood testified he knew MT Chipman thirty eight years, and was one of his nearest neighbors when he lived. He saw him frequent ly the last year of his life and had had business relations with him. He re- membered the time AIr Chipman got married. On January l. 1901. he went to him about a financial transaction. and he was so deaf it was impossible to make him understand. and the busi- ness had to be done through Mrs Chip- man.
 MT Wood told of number of occa- sions of business i'll which MT Chip- man seemed wholly incapable of nn- derstanding what was going on, though he tried hard to do so, and left if to his wife to dispose of each matter as she deemed best
 MT Wood was asked if in his opinion MT Chipman was at any time subse- quent to his marriage competent to make will This question was ruled out and witness was asked if at any time after his marriage he thought MT Chipman sound in mind. Witness re- piled he was not.
 The next question was: "Was Mir Chipman competent to do any impor- tant business after his marriage?'
 Answer: "He was not.''
 Did he have at any time after his ,.,.;s, 1,a ;r,1 o.4-