The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-04-01
DECISION WAS
 AGAINST BRYAN Says He Would Not Use One
 Gent Personally MRS. BENNETT MUST CONSENT Judge Gaqer lnstructs Jury How to Bring in Verdict and Bryan's
 Counsel Makes Appeal to
 Supreme Court.
MRS, BENNETT MUST CONSENT

New Haven, Conn. March 31.--A finding that a sealed letter in which Phlo S. Bennett expressed a wish that s50,00o should be given to William Jennings Bryan and his family. was not a part of the last will of Mr Bennett, was return ed by the jury today in the superior court in the trial of MT. Bryan's appeal from the decision of the probate court. This finding which upholds the decision of the probate court, was given in aceord- ance with instructions to the jury from Judge Gager, who presided at the supe- rior court trial
 Judge Gager's ruling on a question which has never before come directly be- fore the courts of Connecticut, decided that the sealed letter could not be ad- mitted as evidence in the trial The de- cision followed arguments which had occupied most of the two preceding days of the session regarding the admissibillty O. this letter as evidence, counsel for MT. Bryan contending that 1t should be ad- mitted while the attorneys for Mrs. Grace ogmonete Bennett. the widow, and other heirs presented opposing arguments.
 <As NIL 1oiydH dppedi WdS bdatu Oii the. exclusion of this letter as a part of the will in the probate court, the decision of Judge Gager that it could not be ad- mitted as evidence practically concluded the proceedings in the surporior court, and the jury was accordingly directed to bring in a verdict against MT. Bryan. An appeal will be. taken to the supreme court by MT. Bryans counsel on the ground that the letter should be admitted as a part of an established trust.
 Would Override Statute.
 Judge Gager said the letter was disposi- tive in character and therefore came with in the statute governing wills which de- mand that every peper that Is codieil or testamentary must ae attested by three witnesses. He holds that the admission of the sealed letter would override that statute. The court said there was noth- ing descriptive in the will except this phrase, the sealed letter which will be found with my will" Therefore there Is nothing whatever to identify the sealed letter as referred to in section 12 of the will, ID ear-mark to show that that was the letter the testator had in mind when he prepared the will
 Immediately after the decision was an- nounced Attorney Newton for MT. Bryan asked for an exception to the ruling
 Judge Stoddard for Mrs Bennett, sug- gested that the court give a ruling on all questions at once as he thought 1t would be for the best interest for the litigants to get a ruling on all points that could be ruled upon before the case should go up to the supreme court. Judge Gager then declared a recess
 When the recess ended Mr Bryan was called to the stand by Attorney Newton MT. Newton said that to make the ruling or the court clear he wished to offer "ex- hibit B, the sealed letter. and "C," a copy Of the sealed letter for indentid- cation taken together and in connection With these evidences tending to prove that neither of these exhibits was ob- tained by fraud or mistake or by undue influences that 1t was the original desire or the testator that the bequest of S50- vo should be made directly in the will, that 1t was at the suggestion and request of MT. Bryan that the gift was made conditionally, and that it was for that reason that exhibit B. and exhibit e. were made in the form that they were.
 Attorney Newton asked MT. Bryan;
 What was said to you by MT. Bennett with regard of the bequest of s50,ooO at the time of the drawing of the will?'
 Question excluded