The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-03-30
MADE BRYAN SIT DOWN.
The Court Calls the Colonel to
Order at New Haven.

New Haven, Conn.,, March 30.-The
hearing of the appeal of William J.
Bryan from the decision of the probate
court excluding the $50, 900 sealed let
ter" as part of the will of Philo S.
Bennett was continued today in the
superior court. Ex-Judge Stoddard
counsel for Mrs. Bennett and other
heirs regarding the admissibility of
the sealed letter. today supplemented
argument of yesterday by a brief adj
dress in which he reviewed the main
points, the jury being meanwhile ex-
cused. Me. Stoddard laid special en-
phasis on the assertion that the courts
of this country and England have
never admitted a document like the
sealed letter." and he referred to
many authorities and decisions. The
fact that the letter was signed by the
testator makes no difference in a case
of this character. he said. TT is not a
part of the will, was not properly exc
cuted and if allowed to be entered in
this court will be contrary to all law
in Connecticut framed to prohibit
fraud, undue influence and position"
Continuing Mr.. Stoddard commended
that the letter was not properly attest
ed by three witnesses and was not de-
scribed in the will as being part of
the will.
TT is apparent" he said, that this
paper was never intended to be a part
of Mr.. Benefits Will. Counsel for the
other side will say that this paper
was c0ntemporaneous with the will
Where a paper is executed at the same
time at which the will is executed why
does not the party make it part OF
the will? 1t is clearly apparent that
there has been no intention to do So
Judge Stoddard quoted from the let
ter that part which says that the letter
was to be read by the widow alone
and asked: DO you mean to say that
this document was ever intended to be
spread on the public records, read by
YOU alone Their is nothing in that
which can possibly be construed as be
ing a technical part of the testament
of Mr.. Bennett. 1t was letter OF IN
struction, the very terms OF which
show it conclusively.'
A sensational incident occurred when
Mr. Stoddard in the course of his argu-
ment declared that the sealed letter did
not express the truth and did not rep
resent the sentiments of Mr.. Bennett:
Mr. Bryan who had entered the court
room short time before. jumped to
his feet Immediately and started to
speak but was interrupted by ME-
Stoddard. who said with great en-
phasis that Mr.. Bryan was hiding De-
hind subterfuge in this important
matter" and that it was about time
Mr.. Bryan said something. Mr.. Stod-
dard referred to certain letters Whlcn
are said to have passed between MI
Bryan and MIR. Bennett, but while Mr..
Bryan was sun trying " Sel an ~
portunity to speak the court ruled that
| all reference to the letters mentioned
was ;nadmissible at this time Mr.
Bryan insisted DIN being heard, now
ever. saying: Your honor. Judge Stod-
dard has made a statement that IS
| contrary to fact, and I wish to re-
! pudiate it. 1t must be stated right
The court replied: Mr.. Bryan,
should think that you ought TO know
when the court has made a ruling you
| il Please sit
/ down..
Mr.. BRYAN thereupon seated himself,
and Judge Stoddard was allowed an
objection.
The letters referred to are said to
be an announcement of the intention
of Mr.. Bennett to withdraw the letter
! he had already written in which he had
expressed a wish that Mr.. Bryan should
] have $4,000 from his estate:
In the hearing in the probate court,
| it was stated that although Mr.. Bennett
at one time desired Mr. Bryan to have
| $50 600 in accordance with the terms OF
| the sealed letter." he had changed ms
| intention and had he lived, he would
sooner or later have withdrawn the let
| ter which is now in controversy
| When Judge Stoddard had concluded
| his address, he was followed by Attor-
ney Hewitt on behalf of the appellants
| who quoted from several cases in which
he claimed the same conditions existed
| as in this case and made a strong plea
for his side.
Attorney Newton, one of Mr.. Bryan s
counsel, argued for the admission of the
| "sealed letter. as evidence. He con-
tended that Mr. Bennett certainly in
tended that the sum of $4,000 should go
to Mr.. Bryan
Should Mr.. Bryan refuse it," he said
Mr. Bennett intended that the money
| should be divided for educational and
charitable purposes. We protest against
the charge that Mr.. Bryan is trying to
get this $50, 900 for himself, and as his
attorney, it is our duty to say that ii
has been his purpose to fulfill the trust
| made by Mr.. Bennett to the letter."
jeff Davis Wins.
I.it.Ie Book Arls March 2N-RetIIrns