New-York tribune., 1904-08-13
BRYAN LOSES HIS CASE.
SUit for $4,000 from Bennett
Estate Nay Go to Highest Court.

Estate uay Go to Highest Court.
New-Haven. Conn. Aug Il (speciaD-By de-
cision of the Supreme Court Of Errors. fled here
to-day. Williu J. Bryan has lost the third sue
cessive and last round OF his fight in this State
for $4,000 from the estate ~ Philo 5. Bennett.
The Supreme Court unanimously sustains the
Superior Court in excluding as a part of the will
Of Mr. Bennett the sealed letter which provided
for gift OF $4,000 Mr. Bryan The opinion
is written by Chef Justice Torrance. II grOvnds
be found. Mr.. Bryan viii take the case up 10
the United States Supreme Court according to
friends Of the Nebraszan in this city.
Owing to the prominence of the parties con-
cerned and the extraordinary nature of the case.
Bryan's appeal from probate and subsequently
from the decision Of the Superior Court. has at
Jracted wide attention Phio s Bennett a lead
Ing politician Of this State and a wholesale
grocer and importer of this city and New
York, killed in an accident to a stage coach
in which he was riding, in Idaho. August 9. 1905.
he left an estate of 100000. and named William
! Bryan. whose fast political friend and adruirsr
he had been for several years. as a trustee. On
November 6. 1903 the Probate Court approved the
Will. but refused TO admit TO probate the sealed
letter which was referred 70 in the will This
letter was addressed TO the testator's widow and
directed her pay $4,000 to William J. Bryan to
oe used for his personal benefit distributed by
him among educational and charitable institutions
he might elect
Mr.. Bryan qualified as trustee under the will on
November I. and IN that "a pacty and individually
he straightway appealed from the decision OF the
Probate Court excluding the sealed letter and also
pettttoned the Superior Court for construction Of
the Will At the same time Judge Henry Stoddard
counsel for Mrs Bennett and other heirs took an
appeal from the decree Of the Probate Court. ad-
mitttng the will. alleging undue influence on the
part os Mr.. Bryan
At the hearing in the Superior Court which took
place in March. before Judge eager and jury it
was brought out that ten days before the execu-
ton, il New-York. Of the WILL which was dated
May y. 1900. Mr. Bennett and Mr.. Bryan and his
wife prepared a blank draught form of the instru-
ment m Mr.. BryaEs home at Lincoln At the same
time there was drawn up also typewritten docu-
menI. of which the sealed letter later became the
counterpart. For identification the sealed letter
entered on the record as Exhibit B. and the
typewriter duplicate thereof as Exhibit c. On Ex-
hibit b in the testator's handwriting. this
inscription: Mrs P. s Bennett. To be read only by
Mrs Bennett and by her alone. after my death. p.
S. Bennett Seal"
IN the letter the tesaor explained this by saying
that he desired no one except his wife and Mr.
Bryan to know Of the letter or bequest. On the
envelope containing Exhibit c, Mr.. Bennett had
written: Copy % letter in Safe Deposit Company
vault, Wool Exchange" The will and the sealed
letter found in Mr.. lBennetts box in a vault
in the Wool Exchange Building IN NewYorl City,
and the typewriter duplicate OF the sealed letter
was found among his private papers
Counsel for Mr. Bryan first offered in evidence
the typewritsen duplicate claiming that il was the
original and equivalent OF and substantially the
sealed letter referred TO in the will This evidence
being excluded by the court, the appellant there
upon offered il evidence as part OF the will the
sealed letter. which was in turn excluded. The
rejected also parole evidence tending prove
that the sealed letter the Instrument 10 which
reference was made IN the Will Then The jury, BY
direction OF Judge eager, retired and brought IN
a verdict that the sealed letter and its duplicate
were not. either separately or together. Fart OF
the will
The case reached the Supreme Court in June.
Counsel for both sides submitted voluminous briefs
and made lengthy arguments. Ex-senator Charles
A. Towne was one OF the speakers for Mr.. Bryan.
II is expected now thai the Bennett appeal will
be withdrawn as Judge Stoddard all along has in
ti-nated that this would be done should the lower
courts judgment be affirmed
Judge Torrance. in his opinion, says
In Clause p Of the will in question here large
sum OF money is given TO Mrs. Bennett in trust
however, for the purposes set forth in sealed let
teE which vii! oe found with the will -
I HS9 Is nIT m as Sns 1SSS rrSSQ QT0'ea 10 any snasf
document as Oae existing and known to the tesla
the time his will executed Any sealed
letter. or any number OF them setting forth The
time after the viii was executed. and found with
the Will" would each fully and accurately answer
the reference and II we assume that the reference
bv such letter or letters made at any time after
the will drawn
Will is, in fact as well as in law. no reference at
rules Jnder the doctrine of incorporation by refer
ence require in the case OF Wills. 4 reference so
6sped out by What is Called parole evdencs for
TO allow such evidence TO be used for such purpose
would be practically 10 nUlltfy the wise provisions
OF the law relating the making and execution OF
wills
We know Of no case. and in the able and help
ful briefs fled in this case have been referred 70
none where reference like the one here has been
held Incorporate into the viii some extrinsic doc
umGnt.
Assuming. then without deciding. that the doc
trine OF Incorporation prevails in this state, as
claimed by the appellant. we are still or the opir-
ion that The rulings OF which he complains were
correct.
Thsre is no