The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-11-27
BRYAN GETS
NO MONEY
CLEVELAND THE NAME OF THE
JUDGE WHO DECIDED AGAINST
HIM.

NEW HAVEN, Conn, Nov. 6.-Judge
Livingston w. Cleveland of the pro-
bate court handed down a decision 20
day i'm the Philo S. Bennett viii case,
holding that the secret letter directing
Mrs. Bennett, the widow to pay Will
liam j. Bryan $5O,00V, was not part of
the will.
The effect of this is to prevent Mr..
Bryan from obtaining the money mem
toned in the letter unless the present
decision is reversed by a higher court
or unless he should be successful in
legal proceedings against Mrs. Bennett,
in the event that the $4,000 should be
paid under clause twelve Of the will,
which read as follows
Twelfth, l give and bequeath unto
my wife, Grace Imogene Bennett. the
sum of fifty thousand dollars $3.50 ,0O0),
in trust, however, for the purposes set
forth in a sealed letter, which will be
found with said will"
The text of the letter was made pub
lie at one of the hearings on the will
Mr.. Bryan was not present when the
decision was announced, but his attOr-
neys said he would undoubtedly appeal
from Judge Cleveland's decision.
Copies of the decree were handed to
attorneys representing Mrs. Bennett,
the widow, and Mr.. Bryan.
When Judge Cleveland took MS seat
on the bench an inquiry was made as
to Mr.. Bryan's whereabouts, and when
it was stated that he would be here this
afternoon the judge said he would add
journ court until tomorrow so that the
form of the decree could be announced
in Mr.. Bryan's presence.
Attorneys for Mr.. Bryan said that
they were ready for the decree at this
time, but the judge thought an oppor-
tunity should be given for further dis
cussion of the case if desired. He then
said:
Il find that the question of whether
the will was properly executed was not
raised i find that it was properly ex-
ecuted, and ] find that the testator had
sufficient testamentary capacity. | find
that there was no undue influence by
Mr. Bryan over Mr. Bennett.
1T was claimed that the sealed let
ter should be incorporated in the will.
! find that reference in the will was
sufficient as to the sealed letter, yet
| language in the document itself plainly
indicated that the win was executed be-
fore that letter was written.
There was in existeGic before tn
will was executed a duplicate of tie
sealed letter That is considered in
support of the contention that that pa
per was a part of the will. The sealed
letter was found with the will. | find
/ that there was no undue influence, but
that the sealed letter was not incor-
porated I'm the will
The court further said that he ex-
pressed no opinion as to whether the
sealed letter which gives $4,000 to Mr..
Bryan and his family can be incorpor-
ated in the will.
1T may be urged" he continued
that it can be used, but as to that tie
court has no opinion to express"
Attorneys Immediately asked the
court If a construction had been placed
upon the bequest and the court called
| their attention to the text of the decl-
! sion.
Afterward Judge Cleveland stated
| that it was a question whether the pro,
! bate court had a right TO consider the
construction of the sealed letter, and 4
was also a question whether the law.
| yers in the case could so frame a ques
| ton in relation to the matter as t.
! bring 1t within the province of the pro
bate court to consider 1t.