The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-11-07
BRYAN USED NJ UNDUE INFLUENCE Judge Cleveland Decides Against
 Hsirs in VIII Case AN APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN Decision Is Emphatic In Saying That the 6ryans Acted as Honorable Per
 sons Woud--SeveraI Ques-
 ticns Yet to Be Settled.
AN APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN

New Haven, Conn.,, November GA de- cision in tie Pbilo s. Bennett will case, in which W. J. Bryan appears both as an executor under the will and beneficiary, was made y Judge Cleveland in probate court today. The form of the decree will be announced tomorrow when MT. Bryan will be present. The court finds that the sealed letter about which there has been contest providing for a gift of S5O,OOO to Mr. Bryan and family was not incor- porated in the will.
 Copies of the decree were handed to at torneys representing Mrs. Bennett, the widow, and MT. Bryan.
 When Judge Cleveland took his seat on the bench, an inquiry was made as to Mir Bryanss whereabouts and when it was stated that he would be here this afternoon the judge said he would adjourn court until tomorrow, so that the form of the decree could be announced in Mir. Bryan's presence. Attorneys for MT. Bryan said they were ready for the decree at this time, but the judge thought an opportunity should be given for further discussion of the case if he desired. He then said:
 Question of Execution Not Raised
 "I find the question as to whether the will was properly executed was not raised. l find that 1t was properly exc cuted, and 1 find that the testator had sufficient testamentary capacity.
 "I find that there was no undue infiu- ence by MT. Bryan over MT. Bennett. It was claimed that the sealed letter should be incorporated in the will l find that reference in the will was sufficient as to the sealed letter, yet the language in the document itself plainly indicated that the will was executed before that letter was written. That is considered in support of the con, ,3sg{on that that paper was a part of the will. The sealed letter was found with the will l find that there was no undue influence, but that the sealed letter was not incorporated in the wil.''
 The court further said that he express ed no opinion as to whether the sealed letter which gives $5O,0o0 to MT. Bryan and his family can be incorporated in the will Ut may be urged he continued,
  court has no opinion to express"
 As to Request.
 Attorneys immediately asked the court if construction had been placed upon be- quest, and the court called their atten- tion to the text of the decision
 After Judge Cleveland stated that 1t was a question whether the probate court had right to consider the construction A. xtyau a1G a question whether the lawyers in the case could so frame a question in relation to a matter to bring 1t within the province of the probate court to consider it.
 Newton Church and Hewitt, counsel for MT. Bryan in this city said in reply to 8 question that although MT. Bryan had not yet been informed of the decision he would undoubtedly decide to enter an appeal from it. The text of the decision includes about 2500 words In it the court after reviewing the evidence says:
 ''The testimony of MT. Dewill, who had known him a quarter of century showed that the testator was a sharp, able busi- ness man, a man of decided opinion from which he was not easily turned aside. But whatever presumption, if any might be raised by reason of Mr. Bryan's draft ing the will has been in the opinion of the court abundantly overcome by the 
 of a bequest in his favor far from being suggested by him or Mrs. Bryan was a complete surprise to both, state ment in which the court has entire con- fidence, in view of Mir Bryan's frank ness on the witness stand, and his evil dent desire to fully disclose all his rela- tions with the testator, and all the cir cumstances surrounding the drafting Of the will It must also be remembered that inn tn. change his will at any time during the last three years of his life and without the knowledge of MT. Bryan.
 William Bennett Didn't Forget.
 ''NIr. Bennett did not in hIs will 10 any of his heirs at law and made al provision for the support of his wife. ing the total amount or the specihc cies in connection with his estimate the residue as expressed in the letter he evidently thought he was his wife s100,000 or more, absolutely an estate which he apparently L wouId approximate $300,000. The were not the only legatees outside widow and his heirs at law. but tn for besides making liberal pub charitable bequests made genere visions for relatives who wou received nothing but the will.
 Measured by Mir Bennett's dc MT. Bryan and to the principles both had contended the bequest to the Bryans to take effect testator's death does not seem usual than The gift of 5000 off Bryan when they were COT strangers and actually paid Bennett's life
 "This court finds that twelfth clause of the will therein referred to in the t' of the will, was so lncorpors ence as 10 be made par Even the law in this state to be in misjurisdction tha under certain conditions, norated by reference, this ed to on other grounds. conceded that the twelftf will refers to the extra being in existence at the ecution of the will. the
 that the paper referred
 he in existence at the t
 ton of the will
 Letter Itself Ansv
 Was the letter in