Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-04-01
BRYAN LOSES.
Finding That Sealed Letter Was
Not Part of Will.
Jury's Decision in Bennett Case al
New Haven.
Counsel File an Appeal to the Supreme
Court.

Phlo S. Bennett expressed wish that
$50, 900 should be given to William Jen-
nings Bryan and his family. was not a
part of the last will of Mr.. Bennett,
was returned by the jury. today in the
superior court i'm the trial of Mr.. Bry-
ans appeal from the decision of the
probate court. This finding. which up
holds the decision of the probate court.
was given i'm accordance with instruc-
tions to the jury from Judge eager.
who presided at the superior court
trial.
Judge Gager's ruling on a question
which has never before ccme directly
before the courts of Connecticut, decid-
ed that the sealed letter could not be
admitted as evidence in the trial. The
decision followed arguments which mad
occupied most of the two preceding
days of the session. regarding the ad-
instability of this letter as evidence,
counsel for Mr.. Bryan cOntending that
it should be admitted. while the attor-
neys for Mrs. Grace Imogene Bennett,
the widow, and other heirs presented
opposing arguments.
AS Mr.. Bryan's appeal was based on
of the will in the probate court, the
decision of Judge eager that it could
not be admitted as evidence practically
concluded the proceedings in the SUI
perior court. and the jury was accord
ingly directed to bring in verdict
against Mr.. Bryan.
An appeal will be taken to the SUI
preme court by Mr.. Bryan's counsel OF
the ground that the letter should be
admitted as a part of an established
trust. An interesting feature of the
days proceedings was a statement
which Mr.. Bryan made in court that
he was willing to give Il bond that in
no case would the money mentioned in
the sealed letter go to himself or fam
lily without Mrs. Benefits consent.
New Haven, March 31.-A decision
rejecting as evidence the sealed letter"
by which Wm. J. Bryan was to be Civ
en- $4,000 from the estate of the late
Phio S. Bennett was given, today, by
Judge eager in thesuperior court when
the hearing on Mr.. Bryan's appeal from
the decision from the probate court de-
Ginning to admit the sealed letter. to
probate, was resumed.
The decision followed arguments
which have occupied nearly all the two
previous days of the trial in regard to
the admissibility of the famous letter
as evidence. Counsel for Mr.. Bryan
sought to have this letter which was
entered on the record as exhibit B.
admitted as evidence and counsel for
Mrs. Bennett and others fought siren
uOusly against it.
On giving his decision, Judge eager
said that the letter was dispositive in
character and therefore came within
the statute governing wills which de-
mands that every paper that is a cOdi-
ell or testamentary must be attested by
three witnesses. Although there is no
decision. no lawyer has been bold
enough to risk a decision on presenting
a paper that was not attested. In the
present case, the court holds that the
admission of the sealed letter would
override that statute. In this case the
court said there was nothing descrip-
tive in the will except the phrase. 1.-The
sealed letter which will be found with
my will" Therefore there is nothing
whatever to identify exhibit B, the
sealed letter as that referred to in Sec
ton II of the will. no ear mark to show
that this was the letter the testator had
in mind when he prepared the will.
Immediately after the decision was
Attorney Newton for Mr..
Bryan asked for an exception to the
ruling. Judge Stoddard, counsel for
Mrs. Bennett, suggested that the court
give a ruling on all questions at once,
as he thought it would be for the best
interests of the litigants to get rulings
on all points that could be ruled upon
before the case should go to the SUI
preme court. Judge eager then de-
clared a recess of Is minutes.
At the end of that time Attorney
Newton asked for five minutes more
and an additional recess OF 10 minutes
was declared. When the recess ended
Mr.. Bryan was called to the stand by
Attorney Newton and the jury brought
in from teh anti-room. Mr.. Newton
said that to make a ruling of the court
clear he would be obliged to offer in ev-
idence exhibit (the sealed letter. and
c Copy of the sealed letter. for identi-
fication taken together and. in connec-
tion with these evidences tending to
DToNt tIldt ntIttltt eNiliDlt IOI ca
hibit c was obtained by fraud or mis-
take or by undue influence: that it was
teh original desire Of the testator that
the beuueast of $4,000 should be made
by direct will: that it was at the sug-
gestion and request of Mr.. Bryan that
the gift was made conditional and that
it was for that reason that exhibit L
and exhibit C weer made in the form
that they were.
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 another.
Judge eager said when Attorney
Newton asked for specific ruling:
THE ruling having been made and the
sealed letter having been excluded. 1
am little at a loss. on the reasons of
the appeal as they stand. to see what
appeal is OPEN
1t was supposed that Judge Gager's
remark had reference to the intention
of Mr.. Bryan's counsel to appeal to the
supreme court. though no formal notice
of this intention had been given.
Attorney Newton started to ask an
other question of the court and Judge
eager said: This is a court of law
| am not here to no ipferrnp,+od