The evening world., 1903-11-06
Judge CleaveIand, in New
! Haven, Hands Down a Long
Decision in the PhiIo S. Ben
nett Case. -,
SAYS SEALED LETTER
WAS NOT PART OF IT.
Former Presidential Candidate
viii Appeal the Case and
Keep Up Legal Fight for the
$4,000, His Counsel Says.

NEW HAVEN. Conn. Nov. 6.-Judge
Livingston ". Cieavcland, of the Pro-
bate Court, handed down a decision to-
day In the Philo s. Bennett will case,
holding that the secret letter directing
Mrs Bennett the widow, to pay $1,000
60 William Jennings Bryan was not part
Of the will. The effect OF this IL TO pre-
went Mr.. Eryan from obtaining the
money mentioned in the letter unless
the present decision is reversed by, a.
highr court. or unless hs should be Sue
cessful In legal proceedings against Mrs.
Bennett. Clause u OF the will reads as
follows:
:" give and bequeath unto my wife.
Grace Imogene Bennett. the sum OF
$4,000 in trust, however. for the pur-
poses set forth In a scaled letter which
win be found with said will
Counsel for Mr.. Bryan said that he
would undoubtedly appeal the case.
After Judge Cleaveland had an
nopnced hat he would make formal an
nouncement of the decree tomorrow at
10 O'Clock, by reason of Mr.. Bryan's
absence. he adjourned court. Lawyers
for both Mrs. Bennett and Mr.. Bryan
Informally, asked the Cour as TO his
construction of the $4,000 %bequest. He
referred them to the text of the decree
and said that further discussion could
be had tomorrow.
Drawn mt Bryan's Home.
Phllo s. Bennett left $50, 1000 to Bryan,
OF which $4,000 was to be distributed n
accordance with instructions in a sealed
letter filed with the will. The will was
<Iraoun NJ Mr. nrt.ops0 hprua md tuna
written by Mrs. Eryan,
Neither Mrs. Bennett. who had nm
nounced her intention OF contesting the
bequest to Mr.. Bryan. nor Mr.. Bryan
was In court.
Mrs. Bennett has rot appeared at any
OF the hearings. and Mr.. Bryan sent
word that he would reach this city at
4 r. NJ. to-day, when he will receive
the decision of Judge Cleveland.
Judge Henry ~rstoddard. counsel for
Mrs. Bennett. who was charged by Mr..
Bryan with instigating The contest be-
cause OF his political antagonsm to Mr..
Bryan. was In court when the decision
was given. Mr.. Bryan was represented
by his counsel. Henry q. Newton. Of
this city. and Harrison Hewitt.
The decision was $500 words In length
and considered the legal. phases of the
contest principally bearing on the aues-
ton Of whether or not the sealed letter
granting the beauest Of Mr.. Bryan
could be legally considered a part OF
the Will.
In the will the first beauest OF $50. 900
90 Mr.. Bryan was TO be distributed by
him among colleges for prizes for essays
on government. The 5000 according to
the sealed instructions was to 70 SIC, 900
90 Mrs. Bryan. $4,000 to the Bryan chill
dren and Sc. 600 to Mr.. Bryan to use
personally or distribute for charitable
and educational purposes as he saw ht.
The Judges Decision.
Judge Ciea veland in his decision says:
.Mr. Bennet did not in his will forget
any Of his heirs at law. and made ample
provision for the support OF his wife.
Taking the total amount of the SPECIFIC
tegacies in connection with his estimate
of the residue as expressed In the sealed
letter, he evidently thought he was CIV
ing his wife 100000 or more, absolutely,
out Of an estate which he apparently
Bryans were not the only lesatees OUT
side of the widow and his heirs at law,
but the testator, besides making liberal
public and charitable ~bequests. made
generous provision for relatives VINO
would rave received nothing but for the
Measured by MIR. Benefits devotion
TO Mr.. Bryan and TO the principles for
which both had contended, the bequest
OF $50. 900 to the organs. to take effect
after the testator's death. does not seem
more unusual than the gift OF 5000 Of
fered to Mr.. Bryan while they were
comparative strangers and actually paid
during Mr.. Benefits life. he Court finds
that neither the twelfth clause Of the
will. nor the letter therein referred to.
was procured By undue Influence. The
other question TO be considered IL
whether the letter contained in a sealed
envelope, and referred to 1t in the
twelfth clause of the will was so incor-
porated by. reference as TO be made a
twas the letter in the sealed en-
vclopc in existence at the time OF the
execution of the will? This question is
answered by the irst sentence OF the
executed ] have bequeathed to you. &c.
Letter Followed the VIII.
.There Is no ambiguity about the mean
tng OF these wo-os. They say. II they
say anything. that the letter was not
in existence until after the will was ex-
s sSn ha 1t ob Is n9s meaning %saningy to 81 'ntSSa sss
words " ould been affected IL the
evidence mad been offered to indicate
that the sealed letter was In fact pre-
hocause no such evidence was offered,
True, the typewriter draft was pre-
Dared In Nebraska two or three days
before the execution OF the will. and Is
stIi In existence: but II was found in
~ safe In the store OF Bennett Sloan &
co. after the tcstator's death. and not
with TIE will which was found in a
slfe deposit box of the Merchants Safe
Deposit Company, in which box was
also found the scaled envelope. This
fypewritten draft was not designed 10 he
mo letter 20 be referred to In the will
ana canpot be considered as such.
sealed Letter Rejected.
.In view, OF the plain recital in ia,
latter itself, 1t Is difiicult to see how
Without an utter disregard OF III,
anfiVsrjsies this letter can be incor
nnfSfed into the will. and his sour
Hereford finds that the sealed lettei
cannot be admitted to probate as n par
"a Inc win. IT Is not. however, IN,
45ntince of this court in probating {
lin 10 construe It's provisions. Hence
ne EWeifkh clause, whether i~oneratly,
~ not will be admitted to probate a,
= Hhrf OF the Will. n In thus ~reflslnf
Is probate the sealed letter as a part q
~ MN this court does not wish IL Il,
= Q6dcrstood As expressing any opinion
y whether the lettor, without beinI
EI1tHltn. can have any legal effect III
H-rt4fhtian of the trust. attempted Il
-StoI t9Ekhc tatiftA StaeSc OF Nh