The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1905-03-10

BRYAN LOSES lPPElI
TO SUPREME COURT
Decision Handed Down on
Famous Sealed Letter
in PhiIo Bennett
Will Case.
HEBRAsKAN LOSES $4,000
WILL NoTTAKE CONTEST TO q. S,
SUPREME CoURE

to the $4,000 to be Left to Mr. Bryan
is InoperatHve aad That Said Fund il
Part of the Residuary Estate-Heary
II. RIake's ssRaIIot Cases Appeal
Thrown out-other Decisions.
Hartford, March s.--The supreme
court Of Connecticut to-day handed
down a decision in the wei known
Bennett will case I'm which William J.
Bryan has figured as possible bene-
ficiary to the extent Of s50,seo, as pro-
vided In a. sealed letter left by the fer-
mer New York merchant. To-d2ysS
decision upholds the decision Of tho
superior court, which rendered judE-
ment to the effect that the clause ia
Mr.. Benefits will containing the para
graph in regard to the $4,000 to bs
left to Mr.. Bryan is imperative, and
that the said fund is part Of tho
residuary estate. Mr.. Bryan, AFTER one
of the most interesting trials ever held
in New Haven, appealed from this de-
cision, and the result is as stated aboves
| The superior court having held that the
| sealed letter was no part of the will
| the only question to decide was on its
contents as a testamentary document.
| Clause 12 Of the will leaves $4,000 to
Mrs. Bennett in trust with no purpose,
while the sealed letter says that the
money is left to William J. Bryan.
| Therefore the supreme court holds that
the superior court is right III deciding
that the clause is imperative. In itss
decision the supreme court to-day says,
in part:
No effect can be given this sealed
lletter as a part Of the will, even it
evidence was offered to prove that II
was in existence and known to the
| testator at the time the will was ex-
ecuted. The letter cannot operate ass
a declaration Of the trust upon which
money there was a. bequest to Mrs.
Bennett. TO treat this as an operative
declaration of trust would be, in effect,
/ to hold that testamentary Disposition
Of property cuold be made by an IN
strument not executed in conformity
with the statutes regulating such transe
fers of properties.
The opinion goes into the history Of
the will case in detail, reviewing II
from the first contest over the adlrsis-
sion Of the sealed letter in New Haven
| before the superior court.
| Counsel for Mr.. Bryan when asked
| tonight if the case would be taken
any higher said that it would not he.
| Several other decisions were handed
down by the supreme court this after
noon. In the case of Henry Z. Blake
Of New Haven who appealed from q
decision Of the superior court On the
l ballot case the court orders it
stricken from the docket, claiming that
/ the appeal is not authorized by the
! statutes.
4 The Litchfeld county case was Arne-
| liza. T. Dewitt VS.. w. L. Bissell, error.
Hartford county cases: Robert Dick
| erman, admir-, VS.. Richard P. Vernon,
error. Remanded for assessment Of
nominal damages.
Samuel ID. Smith, trustee, VS.. @ b
/ Dana, error, Judgment reversed.
New Haven county cases: Fitzger-
4 aid VS.. Scoville Mfg. Co. No error.
Galvano Type Engraving company
4 VS.. Horace II. Jackson, no error,
Jacinto Leone, admir-, VS.. Daniel n
j Kelly, no error.
The Edw. MalleY Co., VS. Velverney
i Button, no error.
Brechaner VS.. Sohorer, no error.
Margaret Carney VS.. James Hennen.
| ct ux., error, new trial.
Hoggson & Pettis Mfg. Co.. VS. Clar-
ence M. Sears, no error.
i Lengow VS.. Starin, no error.
Cunningham Lumber Co VS.. New
York, New Haven and Hartford Rail
road company, no error.
| Charles S. Mersick VS.. Samuel Alder
man, ct AL, no error
Fairfield county cases: British Am
erican Insurance Co. VS.. Wilson. Err
ror and new trial.
Blanca Rinsicottf VS.. John J. O'Brien
Construction CO. No error.
Mary J. Birdseye's appeal from pros
bate. No error.
/ spenoers appeal from probate. No
error.