The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-10-27
BENNETT WILL ARGUMENTS.
Continued from First Page)

Continued from First Page)
 he thought he ought to. I am not will ing that they shall defeat his purpose the court to so interpret the case. He also said that it was not necessary for the witnesses to the will to have been present when l. Eas signed as long as Mir. Bennett acknowledged in their pres ence his signature.
 He was followed by Attorney Stod- dard, who represents Mrs. Bennett. At torney Stoddard gave a long and forci- ble argument in which he roundly SCOT ed Mir. Bryan. He commenced by say ing that both MT. Bryan and his wife were attorneys and that Mir. Bennett was business man. He then told how M-. Bennett had travelled to Mir. Bry- ans home in Nebraska and without any relatives or friends being present had made the provisions of his will assisted by Mir. Bryan and his wife. He also said that neither relatives nor friends had been notified of MT. Bryan's intend ] ed action and said that the will had been prepared at MT. Bryan's dictation. Continuing, he said that MT. Bryan had testified during the hearing that MT. Bennett wanted to give the s50,000 out right to MT. Bryan, but said that Mir. Bryan was too shrewd lawyer to per- init anything of the kind. He then said that there was no system of jurispru- dence which would permit lawyer to draw such a document and give himself such a sum. Some time was spent by the speaker in referring to the ancient fortune hunters and their mode of pro- cedure and in drawing somewhat sim liar comparison in the present instance.
 He said that where an attempt was made to gain fortune in such man. ner the law put the burden of proof on the party who would be benefited to show that undue influence had not been exercised. Judge S:oddard then cen sured MT. Bryan's actions in exceeding ly strong language, saying that he did not think lawyer could be so lost to all sense of honor and delicacy as to get such 9 provision in a will. He said:
 "The letter itself shows that some req sonable fact must lay at the bottom of :, so strange consideration. The reason such things are not permitted is to pro- tect the safety of the community and the honor of the legal profession, and it would never suffer so large fortune to be so disposed Of as the letter asks for. This letter is subterfuge substituted in place of the dl- rect gift, That sealed letter does not exoress MT. Bennett's will but Mir. Bryan's. It speaks falsely; it does not tell the truth, nor state what it was in tended to state. This statement of MT. Bryans that he will not take the money nor allow his family to do so is a mere pretext. He knows that it is false and illegal and that the law would lnever permit him to have taken the money had it been willed to him direct under the conditions the will was drawn. No court of justice would treat that as a test document. The test is whether MT. Bennett intended to give I the $50.000 clear to Mir. Bryan. or not. The letter says he did, Why was such a letter gotten up? Why did 1t not speak the truth? Why did 1t secrete from Mrs. Bennett that S10.000 which was going to the wife of this man? Did ! it occur to them (Mr. and Mrs. Bryanl that Mrs. Bennett might object that her husbands money be used to provide for MT. Bryan and his family when it might be used for her own?" Continu- ing, he referred to the letter written to Mrs. Bennett by MT. Bryan dated Sep tem5er F, 1903, and referring to MT. Bryan's offer to the widow. Of this let ter he said: IThis letter was subter- fuge for him to get $10,000 for his wife and $15.000 for his children: also the remnant for himself He was very care full and prudent and he has told how he did not. expect contest. It is absurd that lawyer should make such condi- tions and expect them to be valid. See what this man has done in trying to get the widow to let him have the money. What right has MT. Bryan to say that am unfaithful to my oath of office and my client. and attack me behind my back? Did he intend to frighten the widow by his reference to attorney fees? Mark the morality of the man. It shows the desperate straits he is driven into in his avarice to get that money. That letter is a false state ment to get the money for himself and family. Will such a. man be very deli- cate in his attempt to get a legacy? l This letter does not meet the reauire- ments of the law of any Jurisdiction. No lawyer In this state since it's for nation has had the nerve to attempt to try to have admitted any unattested pa- per to probate. This was not Mr. Ben- nett's will, but was will governed and controlled by the will of MT. and Mrs. Bryan. He intended to give maybe, if the whole is not sham, $10,000 to Mrs. Bryan and $15,00O to the children. If this letter was referred to in the will and it was shown that there was an in- corporation. the paper could not even then be probated as part of the will. This paper was made to serve the pur- pose of the lawyer and not the testator. It is all within condemnation of the policy of the law. What strikes me as peculiar is that sympathy for Mr. Bry- an while prompting MT. Bennett in giv- ing this money to him should also make i the proviso that when MT Bryan dies it should go to his heirs also. The fact | is this letter was gotten up as a de- i vise!'
 1 MT. Bryan then took the floor and gave most eloquent speech in which he reviewed his entire relationship with