The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1905-06-06
Court.

the doors, jury which had waited TO
nearly half an hour entered the cour
house, on Wednesday morning, to try
case before Joseph G. Bower, upon whom
was temporarily conferred the title o
Judge. The Sheriff was very modest Oh
taking his seat upon the bench, but to re
lieve any embarrassment which nigh
exist, the attorneys used mollifier by ad
dressing him thus: "If the Court please.
William D. Lippincott appeared in be
half of Beulah Hunt, who brought an at
tachment suit against her brother, Rich
ard s. Haines, the allegation being tina
she had a claim against him amounting
to 81, 422. 81. Haines is one of the heir
of Lydia Lippincott, deceased, of CHINA
minson, whose large fortune was divided
among many claimants. The sum of $685.
SO was the distributive share due Haines
The young man enlisted in the regular
army and he was sent toithe Philippine
Islands, where he now resides. Haine'
sold his legacy in the estate to Howard D.
Terrell. The papers of assignment in
this transaction were executed in the
usual manner and to them was affixed the
seal OF the Supreme court at Manila. A
letter sent to this country gave notice OF
the sale of this account. and in the en-
velope was draft signed by Haines call
ing for the money.
| Learning that Israel Roberts, the ad-
ministrator, had refused to honor this
draft Terrell placed his claim with New
| York collection agency. This firm was
represented in court by Charles S. King,
of Camden, who made a notation of all
the papers in the case and which bore the
| signature of Haines. Because of the alb
sence of Haines and Terrell at the other
end of the earth, King stated that it
would be necessary for him to rely solely
upon the testimony to be presented by
Roberts, who produced letter which he
had received from Haines.
Pointing to the signature of Haines on
the papers received from the court at Ma
Mia, counsel asked:
"Will you tell me, please, whether or not
the signature of Haines on this letter cor
responds with his signature on these pa
pers ?"
II object" exclaimed Lippincott, ION
the ground that the signature has not
been proven, and that this witness has not
qualified as an expert in handwriting"
All of which was true, and because of
this fact the papers and letter were not
permitted to go before the jury.
1t appears that the administrator
refused to pay the draft on the
ground that one of the documents was
defective in construction, but there was
no proof bearing on that point. 1t was
not alleged, either. that the papers were
fraudulent or that Haines had assigned
his legacy to cheat creditors.
Mr.. Roberts only had vague idea of
the transaction because of a serious ILL
ness which confined him in a hospital for
two months. As he was the only witness
the case was given to the jury with scant
testimony, and their verdict in favor of
the claimant was not against the evidence,
as there was none. The jury was of the
opinion that as the legacy to Haines was
legitimate, he had perfect right to sell it,
which he did in lawful manner. Hav-
ing done so, the jury thought the attach
ment suit was not justified, as it was not
begun until several months after Haines
became acquainted with the fact that he
was an heir to the estate. Any other YER
dict would have unconsciously robbed an
absent creditor, which the jury did not
care to be a party to on what they thought
was mere subterfuge They preferred
a higher court to pass final judgment, and
to which the case will be appealed.
Tomorrow, before Judge Bower, % was
the time set to hear the damage suit of
Joseph Tallman, of Springfield township,
from whom they rented a farm, but the
matter has been postponed, as Major
Woolman, who represents the defendant,
has secured an order from Judge Endi-
cott made returnable next Monday, at
Camden, for the compliments to show
cause why the judgment should not be
opened.
In the Orphans court, on Saturday
morning, Judge Gaskill ordered probated
the will of Annie r. Wood, deceased, of
Delanco, and who died in Philadelphia.
Charles A. Hilyard, of Westville, Glouces-
ter county, was named as the administra-
tor with will annexed, and he was re-
quired to give bond in the sum of $780,
900, as the estate will largely exceed that
amount.
The will was presented to Surrogate
Endicett for probate by the Guarantee
Trust Company, of Philadelphia, which
was named as the executor A careful
examination of the document revealed the
fact that several clauses in the will had
been erased or stricken out by some one
drawing pencil marks across the writing.
The surrogate refused probate of the will
because of its mutilated condition, and the
matter was carried into court where con
siderable testimony was taken. George
Gilbert appeared as proctor for the petit
toner, and Eckard p. Budd represented
some the heirs of the deceased husband of
Annie R. Wood The case has been held
under advisement by Judge Gaskill for
several weeks, and in finally disposing of
the matter he rendered the following
opinion:
This paper, as presented for probate,
has on it in three different places lead
pencil lines drawn through certain be
quests or portions of certain requests.
These lines do not obliterate the will or
any portion of it, That is to say, it is
very easy to read what was in the will as
originally drawn. When the will was
found after the death of the deceased. so
far as the testimony in the case goes, it
was in the condition in which it is now
presented to the court for probate. There
is no proof that the testatriX made these
lines, or that any one did it for her at her
instance or request. Nor is there any
proof that any one else other than the tes-
tatrix, or by her direction, made these
lines on the paper presented. The will
was found in the top bureau drawer in the
bed room of the deceased, which bureau
had marble top, and access could have
the marble slab.
There is nothing in the proofs nor in
the paper presented that satisfies me that
the lead pencil lines constitute an oblit-
Grafton or cancellation within the mean
ing of the statute. The portions of the
will through which the lines are drawn are
certainly not obiterated; nor are they in
my Judgment cancelled They have the
appearance of being what is called a
tentative reconsideration of the matters
contained in the WILL if it be assumed that
the testatrix made them herself. There
is no writing on the margin opposite those
| lines nor anywhere in the will either in
the handwriting Of the testatrix or any
one else; no signature or initials by the
testatrix and no declaration of the can.
collation. by the testatrix before the Court
Under these circumstances it seems to mt
that the will must be admitted to probate
as originally drawn. Any other DISPOSE
ton of the matter would open a door sc
wide for fraud that it would be a danger
GUS policy to pursue. The statute re
auires a will to be formally executed al
this will was The statute also requires
that will shall be formally destroyed OF
annulled, not perhaps with the same for
malities required in the execution anC
publication of the will, because by th'
decisions in our State it has been helC
that where lines have been drawn by tn,
testator through certain portions of the
will and memorandum in the handwrit
ing of testator in the margin, or hi
signature or initials in his handwriting il
these cases it has been held to be can
collation.. There is nothing of that kim
in this case, and as ! have said before, i
seems to me to be verysuangerous police
to allow will executed with all the for
malities of the law to be cancelled il
whole or in part by lead pencils lines tina
could be made by any one. If this coult