The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-01
BRYAN LOSES CONTEST
OVER SEALED LETTER IN.
THE BENNETT WILL CASE
Jury Returns Finding Excluding
Codicil as Evidence in the
Superior Court.
WILL MAKE AN APPEAL
Nebraskan's Attorneys Will Carry
the Case to the Highest
Tribunal.
CASE STRICKEN OFF LIST
Judge eager Will Not Hear the
Appeal Made by Mrs. Ben
nett's Attorneys.

NEW HAVEN, Conn, March 31.-A find
fne. that sealed letter. in which Philo s.
Bennett expressed wish chat $4,000 should
be given 10 William Jennings Bryan and
his family, was not part of the last will
of Mr.. Bennett was returned by the jury
to-day in the Superior Court in the trial
OF Mr.. Bryan's appealing decision of the
Probate Court
This finding, which uphoIds the decision
of the Probate Court. was given in ac-
cordance with Instructions 10 the jury from
Judge eager, who presided at the Superior
Court trial
Judge Gager's ruling on a question which
never before came directly before the
courts of Connecticut, decided that the
sealed letter could not be admitted evil
dence in the trial The decision followed
arguments which had occupied most of
the two preceding days of the session re-
garding the admissibility of this letter as
evidence. counsel for Mr.. Bryan contending
that II should be admitted, while the attor-
neys for Mrs. Grace Imogene Bennett. the
widow. and other heirs. presented opposing
arguments AS Mr.. Bryans appeal was
based on the exclusion of this letter as
part of the will in the Probate Court, the
decision OF Eager cOulu not De
admitted as evidence, practically concluded
the proceedings in the Superior Court, and
the jury was accordingly directed to bring
I'm a verdict against Mr.. Bryan. An appeal
will be taken TO the Supreme Court by
Mr.. Bryan's counsel on the ground that
the letter should be admitted as part
OF an established trust
Judge eager said the letter was not posi-
m char
within the statute governing wills which
demands that every codiciI or testament
tary must be attested by three witnesses.
He holds that the admission of the sealed
letter would override that statute.
The court said there nothing descrip
tive 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 that re-
ferred TO in Section II OF the will. no ear
marks to show that this was the letter the
testator had in mind. Immediately after
the decision was announced Attorney New
ton. for Mr. Bryan, asked for an exception
to the ruling.
Judge Stoddard. counsel for Mrs Ben
nett, suggested that the court give a rul-
ing all questions at once as he thought
il would be for the best for the litigants to
get rulings on all points that could be ruled
on before the case would go up to the SUI
preme Court. Judge eager then declared
recess.
BRYAN ON THE STAND.
called to the stand by Attorney Newton.
Mr.. Newton said that to make the ruling Of
the court clear he wished to offer in evil
dence exhibits 0he sealed letter. and C
copy of the sealed letter. for Identification
taken together. and in connection with
these evidence tending to prove that neither
of the exhibits was obtained by fraud or
mistake or by undue Influences; that ii was
the original desire of the testator that the
pequest OF 5000 should be made directly
In the Will; that 1t was at the suggestion
and request OF Mr. Bryan that the gift was
made conditional and that ii was for that
reason that exhibit and exhibit c were
made in the form that they were.
Attorney Newton asked Mr.. Bryan. what
was said to you by Mr. Bennett with re.
the drawing of the will?'
Question excluded.
Mr. Newton.When did Mr.; Bennett first
speak to you, If at all. about the will?
Objection by Mr. Stoddard and the aues-
ton excluded.
Attorney Newton attempted to ask several
questions concerning the sealed letter."
to all of which Mr. Stoddard objected
Judge eager ruled them out one after an
other.
RULING OF THE COURT.
Judge eager said when Attorney Newton
asked for a specific ruling:
THE ruling having been made and the
sealed letter having been excluded. / am a
little at loss on the reasons of the appeal
1t was supposed that Judge Gager's re-
mark had reference TO the intention of Mr.
Bryans counsel 10 appeal to the Supreme
Court, though no formal notice of this in
tention had been given.
Attorney Newton attempted to ask an
other question of the court, when Judge
eager said:
This is 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 proceed
ing" Judge Stoddssrd started to say.
Il don't think 1 need 10 hear YOU Mr.
Stoddard.' said the Judge. who. addressing
himself to Mr.. Newton, said that the ruling
of the court had decided the inadmissibility
OF the sealed letter and that all questions
concerning it were irrelevant and Jenna
teriaI.
Alfred p. Sloan. Mr.. Benefits PARTNER
was called to the stand. MIR. Newton asked
Il inquire of you now whether Exhibit A
1.-THE wild or Exhibit b (for identification)
were. on May % or May %, $780, in your
box or any box of yours?''
Mr.. Stoddard objected and the court ruled
out the question. Mr.. Newton announced
that he was through.
Mr.. Stoddard then suggested that there
be consultation or counsel, and the Judge
declared a ffteen-minutes' recess during
which he and the lawyers consulted i'm his
room. a few minutes later Mr.. Bryan was
called in.
When the court reconvened Judge eager
instructed the jury to retire and bring i'm a
verdict in accordance with his decision AS
soon as the jury had retired Mr.. Newton
stated that his side would like to have the
Bennett appeal case tried Immediately
after this case. Mr.. Stoddard said the de-
cision of the Supreme Court regarding the
admission of the sealed letter. as part of
the will would weaken or strengthen his
case In the Bennett appeal according as IL
admitted or excluded the sealed letter. as
part of the will he therefore asked that
the Bennett appeal case be postponed until
after the decision of the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Stoddard said that undue influence
Is alleged in the Bennett appeal and il the
sealed letter is excluded from the will he
might advise the withdrawal of the BEN
nett appeal Mr. Bryan here said that he
would not insist upon this trial but that his
side prepared. and any delay would
not be through his fault. He continued:
This is the only case I'm which I feel n
personal interest / say now as | said in
the court below. that no money will be used
personally by me without the consent of
Mrs. Bennett"
Mr.. Stoddard said that when Mr. BRYAN
was asked in the lower court 10 put a sim
ilar statement in writing he said he would
do so. but that he has not done H. Mr.
Bryan replied that he would like To refresh
Judge StOddards memory. He reminded his
opponent that he ccald only promise ar thar
time $e5.eo would not be touched until he
had returned home. After consulting Mrs
Bryan he returned and could say the same
I'm regard 10 the other 5000
81 am willing to give bond" he went on
THAT member OF my family will receive