The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-31
BENNETT WILL CASE
K-k. BRYAN INTERRUPTS WID-
 ow's ATTORNEY.
Judge Tells Nebraskan to be seat- cd-Argument is. Beard on Ap- 4
 peal from the Pro- e5 bate Court.


 New Haven, Conn.,. March s1.-Further .snsatlonal incidents marked the second aay s nearing on the appeal of William !. rryan from probate In the Superior Court soday before Judge Gager. Former Judge, S.oadard. counsel for Mrs. Bennett. and s,. r. sryan engaged in a wordy duel du- IlnE the morning session. and the court had to intervene. It followed imnnedIates " after reference to the correspondence oetwen Mir. Bryan and M-. Bennett had oeen made by Judge Stoidard in winch was alleged that Mir. Bennett was brought to the point of writing ''the seal, ed letter" by Mr. Bryan. TG
 Judge Stoddard implied that Mir prvsn was withholding the contents and said.
 this man Insists upon getting s5OOo0. rom the widow by suppressing facts showing that these letters were written facts" e'ie
 MT: Bryan jumped to hIs feet and In sisted that Judge StoddaPd had misstated: the facts but the court ordered him to sit oown. The day was taken up entirely by arguments on the question of admitting the sealed letter."
 Judge Gager will rule on the admission, of the sealed letter tomorrow morning
 Ex7Iudge stoddard counsel for Mrs. bennett and other heirs. regarding the admiss'bility of the sealed letter" to- day supplemented his argument of kes- terday by brief address in which he reviewed the main points, the jury In the meanwhile excused. MT. Stoddard iaid special emphasis on the assertion that the courts of this country and of Erg- land have never admitted a uocumeht like the sealed letter" and he referred to many authorities and decisfons The fact that the letter was signe1 by the testator makes no difference in a case Iof this character" he said. That part. of the will was not property exc euted. and if allowed to be entered in this court wil bc contrary to all law in Connecticut framed to prohibit fraud, undue infu- ence and position.'' ts Continuing, Mir. Stoddard contended that. the letter was not properly attested 9y three witnesses and was not described in the will as being part of the will. Judge stoddard quoted from the letter that part which says the letter was to be read by the widow alone. and asked; | Do you mean to say that this docu- ment, was ever intended to be spread onl the public records read by you alone7' There is nothing in that part which can possibly be construed as being a techni- cal mart of the testament of Mir. Bennett.
 It was letter of instructions. the very terms of which show 1t concluslvely". | sensational incident occurred when I MT. Stoddard. in the course of his argu- ment, declared that the sealed letter did not express the truth and did not repre- sent the sentiments of Mir. Bennett. Mir. Bryan, who had entered the court room l short time before, jumped to his feet immediately and started to speak, but was interrupted by Mir. Stoddard, who said. with great emphasis, that Mir. Bryan was hiding behind a subterfuge in this. important matter, ''and 1t was about time Mir. Bryan said something. MT. Stoddard referred to certain let- ters which are said to have passed be- tween Mir. Bryan and Mir. Bennett, but while Mir. Bryan was still trying to get an opportunity to speak, the court ruled that all reference to the letters mentIoncd
 was inadmissible at this time.
 Mir. Bryan insisted on being heard, how ever, saying: Your honor. Judge Stod- dard has made statement that is con- trary to fact and I wish to repudiate it. It must be stated right. @
 The court replied: -qfn S "-fs5s' # "Mr. Bryan, I should think you ought to know that when the court has made ruling that you cannot go and break It.
 Please sit down."
 Mir. Bryan thereupon seated himself and Judge Stoddard was allowed an objec- tion.
 The letters referred to are said to con- tain an announcement of the intention of MT. Bennett to withdraw the letter he had already written in which he had ex- pressed a wish that MT. Bryan should have $5O,OOO from his estate.
 At the hearing In the Probate Court it was stated, although Mir. Bennett at one time desired MT Bryan to have S5o,000 in accordance with the terms of the
 'sealed letter" he had changed his inten- ton and had he lived he would sooner or later have withdrawn the letter which is now in controversy.
 When Stoddard had concluded his ad- dress he was followed by Attorney Hewitt in behalf of the appellants. ..
 Attorney Newton, one of Mir. Bryan's counsel. argued for the admission of | the sealed letter. as evidence. He con- tended that MT. Bennett certainly in- tended that the sum of $50,000 should go to MT. Bryan Should Mir. Bryan refuse 1t" he contended, MT. Bennett intend- ed that the money should be divided for educational and charitable purposes. We protes against the charge that MT. Bryan is trying to get this S50.OO0 for himself and as his attorneys 1t is our duty to say that it will be his purpose to fulhll the trust made by Mir. Bennett to the | letter.
 After MT. Newton had concluded. Judge l Stoddard replied briefly. He said that | foe some unaccountable reason Mir. New tor wished to eulogize Mir. Bryan and
 tried to impress the court with the fact that Mir. Bryan did not want the money for his own financial aid. in the letter." said Judge Stoddard,
 i've find that the gift Is to Mir. Bryan or to his heirs if they survive him. Just what kind of charity MT. Bryan Is in favor of, whether 1t is that which be- l gins at home, I am not sure"
 1 When the arguments were concluded | I,id0e CsaRer adiourned court until tomor-