The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-03-31
Sensational Incidents Mark Hear
 ing of Bennett VIII Case
ARGUE ABOUT SEALED LETTER
Attorney stoddard Makes Startling Statement That Sealed Letter Does Not Express the Truth About
 Testator's Sentiments.

New Haven, Conn, March 3o.-Several sensational incidents marked the second days hearing on the appeal of William J. Bryan from probate in the superior court today before Judge Gager. Former Judge Stoddard. counsel for Mrs. Ben nett and MT. Bryan engaged in wordy duel during the morning session and the court had to intervene It followed im- mediately after reference to the corres- pondence between MT. Bryan and MT. Bennett had been made by Judge Stod- dard, In which it was alleged that MT. Bennett was brought to the point of writ Ing "the sealed letter. by MT. Bryan Judge Stoddard implied that MT. Bryan was withholding their contents, and said. "If this man insists upon getting s5O,091 from the widow by suppressing facts showing that these letters were written at his behest. the court should know the facts.e
 Mir Bryan jumped to his feet and ln- sisted that Judge Stoddard had misstated the facts, but the court ordered him to 1 sit down.
 The day was taken up entirely by argu ments on the question of admitting the sealed letter" Judge Gager will ruler on the admission of the sealed letter" to- morrow morning.
 Never Admitted Document.
 MT Stoddard laid special emphasis on the assertion that the courts of this coun- try and of England have never admitted l a document like the sealed letter. and he referred to many authorities and de- csions.
 "The fact that the letter was signed by the testator makes no difference in d caso l of this character" he said. That part of the will was not properly executed, and if allowed to be entered IL this court. will be contrary to all law in Connecticut framed to prohibit fraud undue influence and position"
 Continuing Mir. Stoddard eontended that the letter was not properly attested by three witnesses and was not described in the will as being part of the will l Judge Stoddard quoted from the lettcc 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 on the public rec6fds read by you alone" There Is nothing in that part which can possibly be construed as being a techni- 1 cal part of the testament of Mir. Bennett. It was a letter of instructions, the very terms of which show 1t conclusively-" A sensational incident occurred when 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 MT. Bennett. MT. Bryan who had entered the court room a short time before. jumped to his feet l immediately and started to speak, but was interrupted by MT. Stoddard. who said with great emphasis that MT. Bryan was hiding behind a subterfuge in this important matter, and 1t was about time Mir Bryan said something.
 Refers to Certain Letters.
 MT Stoddard referred to certain letters which are said to have passed between 1 MT. Bryan and MT. Bennett, but while Mir Bryan was still trying to get an op- portunity to speak. the court ruled that all reference to the letters mentioned was inadmissible at this time. l MT Bryan insisted on being heard, however, saying: Your honor, Juge Stod- dard has made statement that is con- trary 10 a fact and I wish to repudiate 1 1t. It must be stated right" 1 The court replied:
 MT. Bryan. I should think you ought to know that when the court has made ruling that you cannot go and break l 1t. Please sit down."
 MT. Bryan thereupon seated himself and Judge Stoddard was allowed an ob- l jectioH.
 The letters referred to are said to con tain an announcement of the intention of Mir Bennett to withdraw the letter he had already written In which he had expressed a wish that Mir. Bryan should have s5o.OcO from his estate.
 At the hearing in the probate court 1t was stated, although MT. Bennett at one A. AT . r. accordance with the terms of the sealed letter he had changed his Intention 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.
 Counsel for MT. Bryan.
 Attorney Newton. one of MT. Bryan's ] counsel, argued for the admisisno of 'the sealed letter. as evidence. He contended that Mir Bennett certainly intended that l the sum of $50,000 should go to Mir. Bryan.
 Should MT. Bryan refuse it," he con l tended Mir Bennett intended that the money should be divided for educational and charitable purposes. We protest against the charge that MT. Bryan Is try l ing to get this $5O.000 for himself. and as 1 his attorneys 1t is our duty to say that l made by Mir Bennett to the letter."
 After Mir. Newton had concluded Judge 1 Stoddard replied briefly. He said that for some unaccountable reason Mir New ton wished to eulogize Mir. Bryan, and 1 tried to impress the court with the fact 1 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 MT. Bryan or to his heirs if they survive him Just what kind of charity MT. Bryan Is in fa- yor of. whether it Is that which begins at | home am not sure
 l When the arguments were coneiudeu Iudee Gager adjourned court until to- morrow
 Killed In Runaway.
 Atlanta. March 30 1scapt. W. s. Evrett was killed in runaway accident on