The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1904-04-01
COURT DECIDES
AGAINST BRYAN
Sealed Letter Accompanying
Philo s. Benefits Will
Not Admitted as Evidence
IDENTITY is IN DOUBT
Missive Cannot Be Regarded
as Part of the Last
Testament of the Decedent
is IN DOUBT

NEW HAVEN, Conn, March 31.-
A finding that the sealed letter, by
which Philo S. Bennett expressed a
wish that $4,000 should be given to
William Jennings Bryan and his
family, was not part of the last will
of Bennett was returned by the jury
to-day in the Superior Court in the
trial of Bryan's appeal from the de-
cision of the Probate Court. This find
ing, which upholds the decision of the
Probate Court, was given in accord
ance with instructions to the jury
from Judge eager, who presided at
the Superior Court trial. Judge
Gagers ruling, on question which
has never before come directly before
the courts of Connecticut, decided that
the letter could not be admitted as
evidence in the trial.
The decision followed arguments
which had occupied most of the pre-
ceding two days of the session regard
ing the admissibility of this letter as
evidence, counsel for Bryan contend
ing that it should be admitted. while
the attorneys for Mrs. Grace I. Ben
nett the widow, and other heirs pre-
scented opposing arguments. AS
Bryan's appeal was based on the ex-
clusion of this letter as part of the
bill in the Probate Court. the decision
of Judge eager that it could not be
admitted as evidence practically con-
Guided the proceedings in the Superior
Court, and the jury was accordingly
directed to bring in verdict against
Bryan. An appeal will be taken to
the Supreme Court by Bryan's counsel
on the ground that the letter should
be admitted as a part of an estab-
lished trust.
An interesting feature of the days
proceedings was a statement which
Bryan made in court that he was will
ing to give a bond that in no case
would the money mentioned in the
sealed letter go to himself or his fam
lily without Mrs. Benefits consent.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
Judge eager said in part:
The sealed letter has been offered
as part of the will of Mr.. Bennett,
the will itself having first been adj
mitted and proof having been made
that the letter was found with the
will It's admissibility is purely a ques-
ton of law for the court. No Ques-
ton arises regarding the effect of the
letter as creating trust, nor does any
question arise at this time as to Mr..
Benefits intentions or the circum-
stances under which the letter was
written. The question, upon the face
of the paper, as it now stands before
the court. is: Did Mr.. Bennett take
such steps as under the laws of this
State made the letter. prima-facie, at
least, a part of the will? The statute
as TO the execution of wills provides
that no will or codicil shall be valid to
subscribed by the testator and at
tested by three witnesses, each of them
subscribing in his presence.
The first objection is that the adj
mission of this letter. would violate
this statute, because the letter itself
is testamentary in character and not
executed as a Will.
But there are other grounds of OBJ
lection, which, upon the assumption
that an extraneous testamentary docu-
ment may be incorporated in a will
and. SC entitled to probate, are equally
fatal to the claim of the appellant.
The sealed letter is not described in the
will with sufficient certainty; the Ian
guage of the will is for the purpose
set forth in a sealed letter which will
be found with this WILL Nothing what
ever to identify it; no earmarks upon
it which will show that it was the let
ter that the testator had in mind when
he put his name to that will, and it
was witnessed.
ut is also a grave question here
whether letter is referred to as al
ready in existence. And the letter it
self, it will be observed. refers to the
execution of the will as a past COM
pleted transaction.
NOT A PART OF THE WILL.
IT have said that the intention of
the testator is of no consequence il
he did not do those external acts which
the statute requires to make a valid
will But suppose that. in matter not
clearly within the four corners of the
will. he has disclosed an intention that
a given paper should not have force
or be used as part of a probated will.
The cases, it seems to me, must be
rare, if they exist at all. where such a
paper would be or should be incorpor-
ated in will.