New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-31
COURT REBUKES BRYAN.
NOT zLLoWED TO REPLY.
zrgument Ended IN Sealed Letter
Decentralization To-Day.

I'D rr~Hr n
So Judge eager g. the superior 1ouI' - -,
= 80, s,,rss, 81 Nvllinrn ]. Bryan from the pIo1eS
court decision excluding the famous $500 -.
to+-er" as a part o. the wiz o. f--'4o g.
r-v-Judgs stoCdast and Ny Bryan e -
-, var a. the morning session aia me -
=. :, i-te.--e7e Il followed imneoialtS o-'7-
--ere,oe 10 the correspondence between --l- % 81
- Ar Bennett had been mace oy gu1se
6,rd in which q was alleged that NJ. bt'-l't -
.--r,gtt 10 the point OF writing Ire sehi-e =,
-. = r,-,.sr Judre Stoddarc implied tlal az.
- vas Withholding The contehs' anu
.,rs ,tis man insists upon Cettlns S5-lo lloil 20,
,,taovv by suppressng facts and sno".Hs IA -
-. -, .-itten a. his behost the court shO--a
know TIE facts . ,.-,-.,s +,,at
80. strsdard RAD nisstated the facts Dut '-o
,ou-t ordered him to sit down me Geese c1-so -
yudce GaFer the arguments on ~ -. =. =,
the sealed letter as eFlceH09 WA"
a N to-norrow. -
The 6av was taken Up entirely by arguments o.
,bs question OF admitting the sealed ietlei' 80
sfodlare closing his argument That ne oes3'l
terday de was followed hy A1' -leNi'S' -, ,-r-+
- sfre~ which Mr.. Newton addressed me go
- - tvr, hours telling q The relation oe'"'--
A. pr,an and Mr.. Bennett the reasons -,
80 and fivfng facts TO show that 'Iie "'-i' -,
~ he sealed letter" as evidence was IIot1t ~,
Judge stoddsrd made short efeullei' '
So adjournment CT court 81 90. zos
vx-,en court opened to-day The loom vas
,-,,r,.rt of Judge stoddard counsel tor Nl9.
T.,Bett and other heirs regarding me ao''' -...s
- the scaled letter as evidence vas -
,,.ste-ssv afternoon. but was toho"eo '-1 ~ =
= - = ,-icr 5dress In which the attorney
80 che main points. the jury being He4" = --'e
- rrsee stoddard laid special emphasis on
81, assertion that the courts OF 'ls -, .,.,
rrrrlsra had never admitted o0cal-'-' -
- ,etter" and he referred 70 many 4~1-0'
ties and decisions - ~ D..
- ,,sl.s no difference n a case q TINS c-af
,,t.- .. he said. 1T lie not paI1 o. '0 -
-. ,-ore-lv executed. and y allowed 70 DC
IN this court will be contrary 70 al -" ,e,e-,a
nectcut framed 70 pT0Hio-A -0
and Imposition. - - o..
..,-r-z-F-R INTENDED TO BE PART OF WILL
,-.-.,-,,,-s NJ stoddard contended that the le'-
=. -. - r,-orerlv attested by three WlOles91o'
,ns ,as not described in the VIII as pens -
- the will 1T Is apparent. ne halu' mo
,,s,sr vas never intended 10 be par o. ---
I7srnett's viii Counsel for the other sloe WlI ss
-, ,,,i. aaner was mpoTsneous win the WILL
where a paper is executed at the same 1''-0 "
,,,rr 81. viii IS executed why does not the paIis
,nste n a part Of the VIII? i is clearly aPIie-'
,hat there has been intention 10 do 50.
100. eto56a-d quoted from the letter that part
,,.,cb ssvs mat the letter to be read by The
widow alone. and asked; . ..-
,ver intended 10 be spread on the public RECORDS
pc nv Won alone There is nothing in that When
- ,,ossf1I, be construed as being technical part
~ tbe testament OF Mr.. Bennett II was a le''ei
=, instructions the very terms OF which sho" il
coaclusively" - ca
serd in the course OF his argument declared tilas
the Sc cd letter did not express the truth ana Li-
not represent the sentiments OF Mr.. Bennett MI
BRYAN who had entered The courtroom sA14' ''l-'.
before jumped his feet Immediately ano star 20
10 sneak but Was interrupted by NJ. SJooeaio' VITO
said yri-b great emphasis. that Mr.. Bryan was
..liane behind subterfure IN this important mat
Ter" and that il was about time Mr.. Bryan sal2
Forefiing NJ StoddaTd referred 70 certain letters
which are said 20 have passed between Mr.. Bryan
and sIr Bennett. but while Mr. Bryan was s'l-t
tr,ing 10 get an opportunity 10 speak the eour,
Iuieo ma , = sf ma lime Mr. BRYAN insisted
or fe.rE heard however saying your hoLot-
Judge S5oddard has made a statement tl.at IS con-
trary % fsct and visa to Fepnoia'e d. al must
COURT REBUKEs Mr.. BRYAN
The court replied: Mr.. Bryan, I should think
si,s. VOC ought to know that when the court has
made q ruling you cannot 20 and break Il. Please
cit down"
Mr. B-zan: Yes. your honor" He then seated
himself. and Judge stoddard was allowed an OBJ
3ection.
When Judge sto1da-d had closed his address be
was followed by 8Ir. hewitt on behalf Of the ap-
pellauts, who quoted from several cases in which
he declared the same conditions existed as ID THIS
case. and made stroag pea 10Y Jus -... ,-
Mr. Newton one OF Ar. hIEth : eol...etL- ri 80
te-. ss evidence Sir Newton declared that there
would be honest attempt 20 bring out an the
Te added that Mr.. Bennett certainly intended that
The sum OF 5000 should go 10 Nr. Bryau. should
Mr. Bryan refuse g., he faidi nj bsnrelt M
catonal and charitable purposes
rry1n and Judee stoddard earlier Ia tie day Nr
Newton said we protest against nc charge that
Mr.. Bryan IS trying to get This S''"o Tor himself.
hes been his purpose 70 fulnl The trust made by
NJ Bennett 20 The letter lie accepted The Office
q executor which subjects him 10 al This pub
Fnan ehollld believe n there IS amy belief that
M Bennett 1id not want Mr. BRYAN 20 have The
money we VII dsproye that belief Dy evidence
Az EFFECTUAL PART OF THE WILL
Mr. Newton said that q would be proved that The
letter was an enectual part Of the viii. He also
ezid that by oral evidence he would put before the
sury statements 70 show that any document which
has been mentioned might be the document that
the teStator hao in mind when ne signed the Will
ar Newton dived into stack OF law books. and
cited case after m ar EFFORT TO show that the
sealed letter might be legally admitted evidence
After NJ. Newton had finished Judge Stodaard
replied briefly He said that for some unaccOuuta-
bic reason Mr.. Newton wished 10 eulOEize Nr-
BRYAN. Rnd tried 10 impress the court with the
fact that Mr.. Bryan Cid not want the money Tor
his own financial AID. In the letter said Judge
etoddard. we ind that the gift Is 70 NJ. BRYAN
or 10 rs heirs n they survive him Just what
a Is that which begins 81 home. am not sure.
Arguments on the question ~ admitting the let
ter ended AZ g As o'clock. Judge eager said that
the question before him vitality Important both
Affecting this and TO the state. he said:
Z want 20 cay that the arguments. that have con-
6biy I think that counsel VIII not oppose my ID
sourning until II o'clock tomorrow morning
that might have time 10 reflect on the important
fuH~ n~rrH