The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1903-11-09
BRYAN Is
DISAPPOINTED
Judge cleveland Rules Against Him
In Bennett Will Case.
SEALED LETTER EXCLUDED.
Not Admitted to Probate, but Way
Il Left open For Appeal--NO
Undue influence on Part
OF Mr.. Bryan.

Livingston w cleveland Of the pro-
bate court has handed down a decision
in the Philo S. Bennett win case hold
ing that the secret letter directing Mrs.
Bennett, the widow, to pay William J.
Bryan $4,000 was not part Of the will.
The effect of this is to prevent Mr..
Bryan from obtaining the money men
toned in the letter unless the present
decision is reversed by a higher court
or unless he should be successful III
legal proceedings against Mrs Bennett
IN the event the $4,000 should be paid
under clause IL Of the win, which
reads as follows:
Twelfth. give and bequeath unto
my wife, Grace Imogene Bennett tho
sum Of $4,000, In trust, however, for
the purposes set forth in a sealed letter
which viii be found with said Will
The text Of the letter was made pub
lie at One Of the hearings on the viii.
Mr.. Bryan was not present when the
decision was announced, but his attor-
neys said he would undoubtedly APP
peal from Judge Cleayelands decision.
The text Of the decision includes
about 1900 words. In 1t the court,
after reviewing the evidence, says
The testimony Of Mr.. Dewell. who had
known him for a quarter Of a century,
shows that the testator was a sharp able
business man, a man Of decided opinions.
from which he was not easily turned
aside But whatever presumption If any
might be raised by reason OF Mr.. Bryan
drafting the VIII has been, in the opinion
Of the court, abundantly overcome by
the evidence. Air. Bryan testihes that the
idea of a bequest in his favor, so far from
being suggested by him or Mrs. Bryan,
was a complete surprise to both, a state
ment Ia which the court has entire conn-
dence in view Of Mr.. Bryan's franiSness
on the witness stand and his evident de-
sire % fully disclose all his relations with
the testator and all the circumstances
surrounding the drafting Of the will. 1T
must also be remembered that the tess
tator had ample opportunity to change
his will at any time during the last three
years Of his life and without the knowl-
edge Of Mr.. Bryan
MIR. Bennett did not in his viii forget
any Of his heirs-at-iaw and made ample
provision for the support Of his wife
Taking the total amount Of the specific
legacies in connection with his estimate
of the residue as expressed In the sealed
letter he evidently thought he was giving
his wife $4,000 or more absolutely out Of
an estate which he apparently thought
would approximate 100000. The BFyans
were not the only legatees outside Of the
widow and his heirs-at-iaw. but the tes-
tator. besides making liberal public and
charitable bequests, made generous pro-
vision for relatives who would have re-
celved nothing but for The viii.
e.
Mr.. Bryan and to the principles for which
both had centended, the hequest Of $4,000
TO the organs. to take effect after the
testator's, does not seem more unusual
than the gift Of $1,000 offered TO Mr.. Bryan
while they were comparative strangers
and actually paid during Mr.. Bennetts
life
No Undue influence.
This court finds that neither the twelfth
clause of the will nor the letter therein
referred to WIS procured By undue iniiu-
enoe.
The other question to be considered is
whether the letter contained in a sealed
envelope and referred to in the twelfth
clause Of the viii was So Incorporated by
reference az to be made q part Of the will
Even though the law in this state IS as it
seems 10 be in most jurisdictions, that
such d paper, under certain conditions
may be Incorporated by reference, this
letter is objected to on other grounds.
Even If It be conceded that the twelfth
clause in this win refers TO the eXtraneous
paper as being in existence az the time q
the execution Of the viii the authorities
agree that the paper referred TO must ~
fact be III existence az the time Of the ex-
eeutian Of the will
Was the letter in The scaled envelope in
existence al the time Of the execution Of
the WIFI This question is answered by
the first sentence 1T the letter Itself IT
reads, I'm my viii just executed, I have
bequeathed ta you. etc. True the type
written draft was prepared in Nebraska
two 81 three days before the execution Of
the will. but this typewriter draft was
not designed TO be the letter to be referred
to in the viii and cannot be considered as
such
Letter Cannot be PrObated.
Page. IN his work on wills, 165. states
the law as follows: THE reference in the
will TO the document as already Ia ex~
| istence is not conclusive. II must be
shown further that the document sought
TO be incorporated was, in fact, ~ ex-
I istence at the time OF the execution Of
the Will Where the document re-
ferred to Is written after the Will Is e1-
executed even II Immediately after and on
/ the same day. it cannot be regarded as
part OF the will"
1 In view of the plain recital N the letter
! itself Ii Is difficult TO see how, without an
utter disregard Of the authorities, TINS
letter can be Incorporated into the viii
and this court therefore finds that the
sealed letter cannot be ADMITTED TO pro-
bate as 4 part OF the will. It is not how
ever. the province of this court IN prohat-
j ing a viii to constitute its provisions
4 hence the twelfth clause. whether oper-
alive or not will be admitted to probate
/ as part Of the win and In thus refusing
TO probate the sealed letter as q part of
/ the W.T. this court does not wish 70 be un-
derstood as expressing any opinion as 60
whether the letter without being pre-
4 hated can have amy legal effect as q
declaration Of the trust attempted e Pc
created By the twelfth clause Of the will
Justice aIassice Dies suddenly.
Oneonta, N. y, NOV. 7.-Bmr Mat
/ Of