The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-03-31
BENNETT WILL CASE,
MADE REGARDING
 SEALED LETTER.

and Mr. Bryan-Aceused by counsel
 of "Hidtng Behind subterfuge"-
 Claim That ssealed Letter" Beqnest
 Was Not for the Public Eye-OIher
 Alleged Letters by Mr. Bennett An-
 nouncing Intention Co Rescind Leg
 acy ao Mr. Bryan.
 The supreme court room was again crowded with an interested audience yesterday, when the hearing was con- tinued on the appeal of William J. Bry- an from the decision of the Probate court excluding the famous fifty thou sand dollar sealed letter" from the will of P. S. Bennett.
 The argument Of ex-Judge Stoddard, counsel for Mrs. Bennett and other heirs. regarding the admissibility of the sealed letter" as evidence was comple- ted Monday afternoon, but what fol- lowed yesterday by a brief address in which the attorney reviewed the main points, the jury being meanwhile ex- cused. Ex-Judge Stoddard laid special emphasis on the assertion that the courts of this country and England have never admitted a document like the sealed letter. and he referred to many authorities and decisions. "The sact that the letter was signed by the testator makes no difference in d case of this character" he said. Tt Is not a part of the will, was not properly execu- ted, and if allowed to be entered in this court will be contrary to all law in Connecticut framed to prohibit fraud, undue influence and imposition.'
 Continuing. MT. Stoddard contended that the letter was not properly attest ed by three witnesses, and was not de- scribed in the will as being part of the will. Tt is apparent" he said, that this paper was never intended to be a part of Mir. Bennett's will. Counsel for the other side will say that this paper was contemporaneous with the will, Where a paper is executed at the same time at which the will is executed why ldoes not the party make it part of the will? It is clearly apparent that there has been no intention to do so''
 Judge Stoddard quoted from the letter that part which says that the letter was Ito be read by the widow alone. and asked: Do you mean to say that this document was ever intended to be spread on the public records? Read by you alone There is nothing in that which can possibly be construed as be- ling technical part of the testament of MT. Bennett. It was a letter of instruc- ltions. the very terms of which show it lconclusively.
 A sensational incident occurred when Mir. Stoddard, in the course of his argu- lment. said that the sealed letter, did not express the truth, and did not rep resent the sentiments of MT. Bennett. M-. Bryan, who had entered the court room a short time before, jumped to his feet immediately and started to speak, but was interrupted by MT. Stoddard. who said with great empha- subterfuge in this important matter, 2 and that 1t was about time MT. Bryan said something.
 MT. Stoddard referred to certain let ters which are said to have passed be- tween MT. 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 men, toned was inadmissible at this time. MT. Bryan insisted on being heard, however, saying: Your Honor, Judge Stoddard has made a statement that i is contrary to fact, and I wish to repu- diate it. It must be stated right
 The court replied MT. Bryan, should think that you ought to know that when the court has made a ruling you cannot go and break it. Please sit down."
 MT. Bryan-Yes. your honor.
 l He then seated himself, and Judge Stoddard was allowed an exception,
 The letters referred to are known as exhibits and in this case, and are lsaid to contain an announcement of the Intention of MT. Bennett to withdraw t the letter he had already written, ir which he had expressed a wish that MT Bryan should have fifty thousand dol lars from his estate. At the hearing ir the probate court it was stated that, al though MT. Bennett at one time desired MT. Bryan to have fifty thousand dol lars in accordance with the terms of the sealed letter" he had changed his in tention, and, had he lived, would sooner or later have withdrawn the letter (which is now in controversy.
 1 Attorney Hewitt, on behalf of the ap. oellants. quoted from several cases ir which he claimed the same conditions existed as in this case, and made { strong plea for his side.
 At this point a recess was taken.
 During the recess William Perkins the driver Of the stage in which Mir Bennett was riding when he was killed in Idaho. appeared in the court room He will be d witness.
 I When business was resumed. Attor. ney Newton. one of MT. Bryan's coun. sel. began an argument for the admis. lsion of the sealed letter. as evidence MT. Newton said that there would be an honest attempt to bring out every iota of evidence that would show tht exact conditions in regard to the draw ing up of the will and the letter He added that MT. Bennett certainly Intended that the sum of fifty thousand dollars should go to Mir Bryan Should Mr. Bryan refuse it" he said MT. Bennett intended that the money should be divided for educational ant charitable purposes"
 Reserring apparently to the colloquy l between MT. Bryan and Judge Stoddarc