New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-11-07
RULES AGAINST BRYAN
BENNETT WILL DECISION.
Letter EGcInded-Ur. Bryan Says
He WOn on Moral Grounds.

decision to-day in the Philo s. Bennett will case
holding that the secret letter directing WIS ben
nett, the widow. 10 pay ". j. Bryan $V'vV', Wa
not Incorporated in the will. The effect or this i
TO prevent Mr. Bryan from obtaining the money
mentioned in the letter unless the decision Is re-
versed by n higher court. or unless ne SnoUu %
successful in legal proceedings against MIS- Ben
nett, in tho event the $1,000 should De i"il1 uH4r4
clause u OF the will. which reads as follows;
Twelfth give and bequeath unto my wife;
Grace Imogene Bennett the sum OF MY Ino.ssiili
set forth in a scaled letter which VIII be- found
with said VIII
The text OF the letter was made public at one
of the hearings on the will Mr.. Bryan vas not
present when the decision was announced. but MS
attorneys said he would undoubtedly appeal rom
Judge CIeaveald's decision.
The Judge said he would adjourn court until to-
morrow so that the form of the decree could be
announced in Mr. BTyans presence. The court
said:
find that the question % whether the viii was
properly executed not raised ind that u
had Sufficient testamentary capacity. ] find that
there was no undue influence by NJ. BIyan , 0tsr
should be Incorporated In the vii; INC M
letter vet language in the document itself plainly
indicated that the will executed before that
the will executed a duplicate OF the sealed
letter. That is considered IN support o. the con
tentlOn that that paper part OF the VIII,
The sealed letter was found with the will | IND
that there was undue influence. but that the
sealed letter was not Incorporated in the will
The court further said that he expressed no op.n-
ion whether the sealed letter. which gives S-
900 TO Mr. Bryan and his family can De moor
porated in the will He said: 1T may be urged
that It can be used but to that the court has
opinion TO express"
Attorneys Immediately asked the court n a
construction had been placed upon the bedueSt'
and the court called their attention to the text OF
the decision. Afterward Judge Cleveland said II
question whether the Probate Court had
right to consider the construction Of the sealel
letter. and it also a question whether the law
yers in the case could so frame question in reia-
ton 10 the matter to bring Il within the province
of the Probate Court to consider it,
COURTS DECISION.
The text OF the decision includes about 210
words In it the court after reviewing the eVl-
denCe. says:
The testimony Of Mr. DeweT, who had known
him for quarter of a century, shows that 'ilT
decided opinions. from which he was not easily
mght be raised by reason Of Sir Brysn dra
the will has BEEN in the opinion OF the GouIL,
testihes that the idea OF q bequest IN his javor'
Ear from being suggested by MN or MIS- a.
which the court has entire confidence in view OF
Ais eyiieht desire to- fully disclose all his reia-
tons with the testator and all the cireums tanGes
surrounding the drafting of the will Ii must Also
be remembered that the testatOr had ample opPor-
last three years Of his life and without the knowI-
edge OF Mr. Bryan.
nus t "a bie WIFE ffu Takine the total amount OF
bs Specc me isxsees in Connection With his esti
mate OF the residue, as expressed IN the sealed
letter nc evidently thought he was giving his
wife 10000 or more absolutely. out Of an estate
which he apparently thought would appr5xiIaa L
outside of widow and his heirs-at-l1w put the
liable bequests made generous provision for rela-
lives who would have received nothing but Tor
NIessiired by Mr. Benefits devotion to Mr. Bryan
and to the principles for which both had eontende
the bequest OF $1,000 the organs, % take effect
after the test tors death does not seem more ui
while they were comparative strangers, and ac-
tq Tb P oart nd that neither the twelfth clause
of the will rOr the letter therein referred to was
fbey question to be considered is whether
the letter contained in u sealed envelope and re-
f fnT 10 in the twelfth clause OF the will
SO Incorporated by reference as to be made d part
S ie seems ~I to be in most jurisdictions that such
a paper. under certain conditions. may De incor-
other grounds Even if it be conceded that the
1wedItn e 6ei1 in existence at the time OF the
execution of the will. the authorities agree that
erce at the time Of the execution of the will.
LETTER EXCLUDED.
Was the letter in the sealed envelope in exist
Question Is answered by the first sentence Of the
letter itself. 1t reads: In my will Just executed.
written draft was prepared in Nebraska two
thTse Iays dram VS. not designed 10 be the
letter to be referred to in the will, and cannot be
In view OF the plain recital In the letter itself.
IL is difficult see how without an utter disre-
porated into the will, and this court. therefore.
finds that the sealed letter cannot De o aded 70
the province of this court in prObatug will TO
construe it's provisions. Hence. the twelfth clause
whether operative or not will be admitted to pro-
bate as part Of the will and in thus refusing
this court does not wish to be understood eX-
without being probated. have any legal effect
as declaration Of the trust attempted to be
created by the twelfth clause Of the VIII
It would appear from the decision OF the court
that Mr.. Bryan is not prevented from at least at
tempting in some other way. probably in the SUI
perior Court if not IN the Probate Court. to
force the provisions his Of the letter found
in the sealed envelope which letter is still the
custody Of the Probate Court here.
MR.. BRYAN's STATEMENT.
William T. Bryan reached this city late to-day
from Lincoln Neb.. and at wen. 10 the offices
Of his attorneys where he read Judge Cleaveland's
decision I'm the Bennett will contest. After Mr.
Bryan had conferred with his lawyers he made
this statement:
The decision Of Judge CIeaveland in the Bennett
tons raised by the heirs, and against me on the
t9ehnieal points only Tae JadsS hqas that no
that injustice was done to the relatives. He
cannot be probated with the viii but he expressly
disclaims any Intention to decide whether or not
and estabshins "a, trust; ne says that the con
OF the probate The effect declares that the
bequest would have been good II 1t had been made
che decisions the letter cannot be prObSted IN the
absence of proof showing that il was actually in
II the beauest fails IL will be the fault
OF NJ Benne Sut I'm Snp tS poin{ VIII
attorneys have not Yet decided IN what form the
a m much better pleased with The decision than
would have been if the court had decided for me
questions involved. His decision on the question