The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-10-27
BRYAN CHARGED
 WITH AVAR|CE Spicy Arguments Conclude Hear ing of Bennett VIII Case ATTORNEY STODDARD SEVERE
Says Bryan Arranged Everything So as to Show That His Influence Over Bennett Was Not Undue.
 Bryan Makes Calm Reply.

New Haven, Conn.,. October 26.-Argu- ments In the Philo S. Bennett will case, the testimony in which including the un- sealing of letter in which bequest had been made to William J. Bryan, were heard by Judge Cleveland in the probate court tonight. Judge Henry Stoddard of this city. counsel for Mrs. Bennett, the widow, MT Bryan in his own behalf and Henry c. Newton. his counsel, addressed the court. In the course of his argument Judge Stoddard arraigned MT. Bryan in severe terms. MT. Bryan in reply, said that if MT. Bennett could stand being ma ligned for his political beliefs, he could endure criticism for following friends wishes.
 After MT. Stoddard had asked the court to disregard the so-called sealed letter and the paragraph in the will referring to 1t, Judge Cleveland announced that he re- served his decision and adjourned court, it being midnight.
 When the court opened Judge Stoddard Mrs Bennetts counsel, handed Mr Bryan a letter written October 21 1903. at Chi cago.
 Mr. Bryan acknowledged that it was HIS lldhuWIiliuB WHICH dDD0dTcu SUD- scribed to it. The letter was in part as follows;
 Letter to Mrs Bennett. My Dear Mrs, Bennett;
 T have not yet recovered from my sur prise at the course taken by your coun- sel, your niece and yourself in regard to the money left you. From the conduct of your attorney 1 am satisfied that being one of the gold democrats who left us in 1896, and not at all in sympathy with the political views of your husband and myself, he is willing to defeat MT. Ben netts purpose, if 1t can be defeated. no matter how plainly set forth is that pur- pose. The fact that your niece and her mother received anything seems to have influenced that branch of the family to attempt to defeat the. plain and lonss standing plan of the testator.
 T am satisfied that your action is due to the persuasion of a lawyer unfriendly to the political views of MT. Bennett and myself and to the persuasion of the rel atives, whose disappointment has made them indifferent to the wishes of their benefactor. Your expression of confidence fin me and the willingness of the relatives of Judge Stoddard to defeat MT. Bennett's purpose. has led me to reconsider my de- cision on the executorship. l wish you would, therefore, delay action until fur ther notice. l want to consider the mat ter further"
 After the letter had been read and ad- mitted, MT. Stoddard asked MT. Bryan:
 What conduct on the part of Mrs. Ben netts attorney did you refer to in this letter."
 Bryan Makes Tart Answer.
 From the first time l talked with you I ha fhta DOli- tics in 1t than law. That covers the ground"
 Have you any other justification for writing such a letter.?
 That is sufficient
 Mr. Newton, counsel for MT. Bryan, then asked that the will be probated and as part thereof the letter written by him to his wife and friend be sealed up.
 Attorney Stoddard, in his argument, re- ferred to the fact that both MT. and Mrs. Bryan are lawyers. He said in part:
 MT. Bryan and his wife, with MT. Ben nett, arranged in Lincoln a draft of this provision, and framed this letter which disposed of 0,OO0 of MT. Bennett's money. No member of his (Bennetts) family was present or notified of the fact. MT. Bryan has told your honor that MT. Bennett wanted to make different disposition of the $5OOO0 to give it to him absolutely. MT. Bryan would not have it, and the reason is plain. Mir Bryan is lawyer.
 Must Show Influence Not Undue.
 The common law says that when a law yer draws a will in which he obtains a benefit he must show that the influence which he exerted was not undue. Is it any wonder then that when MT. Bryan found himself confronted with this situ- ation. he would not permit MT. Bennett to make that provision directly to him self? And so this subterfuge was sub stituted in place of it. But this sealed letter does not state Mr. Bennetts will.
 It states MT. Bryans will. A solemn letter addressed to the wife of MT. Ben nett adduced the fact that Sl00O0 was going to this man. Why was it? Did it enter into the calculation that Mrs. Ben- nett might object, MT Bryan knowing perfectly well that the provisions of the section of the will are prescribed by law. Mr. stoddard spoke of the Chicago let fer as a last despairing effort and said Mr Bryan was desperately driven in avar;ce to get the s50000. Except I saw if in his own handwriting" he said, it would be incredible that any lawyer could write such letter as this. To my mind ;t ,,arlxs the morality of the man.
 This sealed letter feature is device that brands the whole transaction. It u,or,t answer under the law. MT. Bryan did not ask for the gift.