New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-01
REJECTS BRYAN LETTER.
JUDGE DEALS HARD BLOW
Witnesses Necessary for Disposition
of Estate.

hearing on Mr.. Bryan's appeal from the decision
Of the Probate Court declining TO admit the
sealed letter" to probate was resumed
The decision followed arguments which have
occupied nearly ali the two previous days OF The
trial IN regard 20 the admissibiity OF the FAMOUS
letter as evidence. Counsel for Mr.. Bryan
sought 10 have this letter. which was entered
on the record az Exhibit for Identification
admitted as evidence, and counsel for Mrs. Ben
nett and other heirs fought strenuously
against IL.
In giving his decision. Judge eager said that
the letter was dispositive IN character. and
therefore came within the statute governing
wills which demands that every paper that is
codicn or testamentary must be Rttested b.
three witnesses Although there is no decision.
no lawyer has beer bold enough 10 risk a de-
cislon on presenting paper that was not so
attested In the present case. the court holds
that the admission OF the sealed letter would
override that statute. In this case the court
eeid there Was nothing descriptive in the will
except this phrase The sealed letter which will
be found with my win" Therefore there is moth
ing whatever 10 Identify Exhibit B, the sealed
letter that referred 10 in section Il OF the
WILL earmark TO show that this was the
letter the testator had IN mind when he pre-
pared the VIII.
Immediately after the decision was announced,
Attorney Newton. Tor MI Bryan asked LOT an
exception 70 the ruling. Judge stoddard. coun-
sci for Mrs Bennett suggested that the court
give a ruling on eli questions at once. he
thought Il would be for the best Interests Of the
fitieants to get rulings ell points that could
be ruled upon before the should go up to
the Supreme Court
BRYAN QUESTIONED IN VAIN.
Mr.. Bryan was called later TO the stand by
~. zr--, A-o-- In
the anteroon- Mr.. Newton asked Mr.. Bryan,
What was said TO you by Mr.. Bennett with
regard TO the bequest OF $4,000 a the time OF
the drawing OF the will?'
The question was excluded. were several
more OF q similar character.
When Attorney Newton asked FOR g specific
ruling Judge eager said: The ruling having
been made and the sealed letter having been
excluded. am a little at loss. the reasons
Of the appeal as they stand. TO see what appeal
is open"
Mr. Newton started to ask another question
OF the court and Judge eager said: This is a
court Of law. ] am not here TO be Intercepted"
Mr. Bryan left the stand and conferred with
Mr.. Newton.
Isn't this a most extraordinary proceeding
Judge Stoddard started to say.
II don't think need hear you Mr.. Stoddard''
said the Judge who. addressing himself TO Mr..
decided the inadmiesibility OF the sealed letter
and that all questions concerning it were irrele-
want and inlmaterial
JUDGE INSTRUCTED JURY.
When the court reconvened Judge eager in
etructed the jury retire and bring IN a verdict
sn accordance with his decision. at the
time handing the foreman copy Of his ruling
on the sealed letter" AS soon as the jury had
retired. A[r. Newton arose and stated that his
side would like TO have the Bennett appeal case
tried Immediately after this case. Mr.. Stoddard
stated that the decision OF the Supreme Court
regarding the admission OF the sealed letter"
part Of the viii would weaken or strengthen
his case in the Bennett appeal. according as it
admitted or excluded the sealed letter" as part
OF the WILL He therefore asked that the Ben
nett appeal case be postponed until after the
decision OF the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Sto6dare said that undue influences is al
seged In the Bennett appeal, and II the sealed
letter" IS excluded from the will he might advise
the withdrawal OF the Bennett appeal Then Mr.
Bryan arose and said that he would not insist
upon this trial. but that his side prepared.
and any delay would not be through his fault
lie continued: This IS the only case in which
feel personal interest ] say now. as I said
in the court below, that no money viii be used
personally by without the consent Of Mrs
Bennett"
Mr. Stod3aro arose and said that when Mr.
Bryan was asked in the lower court 10 put a
similar statement IN writing he said he would
do SO. but he has not done IT. Mr.. Bryan replied
that he would like 10 refresh Judge stoddard's
memory.
lie reminded his opponent that he could only
promise at that time that $4,000 would not be
touched until he had returned home. After con-
sulting Mrs. Bryan be returned and could say
the same in regard to the other $4,000. He con-
ttnCed: 7 am willing 70 give bond that no men,
Der OF my family win receive one cent OF that
10000 without the consent OF Mrs Bennett"
BENNETT APPEAL STRICKEN OFF.
Judge eager then ordered the Bennett eppeal
stricken of the trial LIST. The Jury had rapped
Cor Ambulance while Mr.. Newton was asking 70
have the Bennett appeal tried next but had
been told to walt Il was now admitted ana
returned a verdict excluding the sealed letter.
and the typewritten copy OF the same as evil
dence as a part Of the Will The court then
adjourned.
An appeal to the Supreme Court viii be made
At once. In his decision Judge eager said IN
part:
The sealed letter" has been offered as a mart Of
me WIZ OF Mr.. Bennett, the viii Itself having
first been admitted and proof having been ma de
that The letter Was found with the will Its ad-
instability is purely question OF law for f3s
court. Bot there are other grounds of objec-
ton which, upon the assumption that an ex-
traneous testaInentary document NAV be NV
reference Incorporated in a viii and so en-i+laI
20 probate, are equally fatal 10 the claim OF
the appellant. The sealed letter is not described
IN the wgll with sufficient certainty: the lar
guase OF the win is tor the purposes set fo-th
IN sealed letter which viii be found with this
Will" Nothing whatever to identify IL: no ear
marks upon II which will show that n was tba
letter that the testator had In mind when ne nut