Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-06-22
lord" DUNCOMBE'S
HEIR SUES BANKER
Clarence S. Mcclellan, Who Drew Up
Deeds to Naomi Duncombe,
a Defendant.

pare &c OF land in the county OF wcstchester
or In the city OF New York from me 10
ounce Mcclellan have been obtained NV
fraud ana under undue influence and must
pe restored TO me. Should my health per
nnr+, intend 10 take action against the
paities VINO have attempted TO deprive my
legitimate heirs Of their first rights
Wife Cruel, Says Will.
In another paragraph of the alleged will
occurs inns sentence: Il also wish that any
claim for dover rights shall be contested nv
my executrix on the ground that my wife
mas cruelty treated me of late and that she
mas secured from me large sums of money
by continued Misrepresentation"
Under the terms OF the partly burned ,vt,I
the teatators daughter, Adeline Williams
was made his sole executrx and principai
time nv me
armed with this document as a weapon
Uuncombe Drage Williams through his at
.orney' William L. Snyder of Beekman
receiver appointed for all Mrs. Duncombes
property and to force the probate before
.ne surrogate Of the partly destroyed win
as valid instrument
simon had died in the interim and what
ever interest the brother might have had
IN y tne contest reverted to his father. John
.. "pnams who survived him. In that
Suit fatrick J. Ring. who had married
Naomi Duncombe. was made q eodefendAnt
., The plaintiffs complaint set forth tina.
this will was destroyed by accident or
Design after the death Of the testafoy.
mat the defendant knew of the will and
nad fraudulently. in collision with othere
CON concealed the fact Of its existence, and
that the defendant and others had con-
spired to fraudulently get deeds for certain
property from the testator.
When this suit finally reached q hearing
oenoIe Judge Tompkins, in the supreme
TICK J. Ring was the first witness called hv
the PLAINTIFFS counsel. He was shown a
document for Identification. It bore what
p pitl 10 be the signatures Of Ring and
Aiired Hall Duncombe, but the purport OF
TINS document was not revealed Ring re-
FUSED TO authenticate either his own or the
late Mr.. Duncombes signature.
Says He Saved VIII.
Rng was next asked to inspect .he partly
burned pages OF the. alleged will of 1892.
He did SO. and admitted he had seen the
instrument before. Under examination he
said that. accompanied by the late Roger
M. Sherman, who as counsel had been con-
nected with the earlier litigation, he had
gone to William McCourt's place. There
about the Williams cases. about some
money. This paper was then thrown into
the stove and 1 grabbed it,
Who threw 1t IMP asked Judge Thomp-
kins.
Mr. McCourt did," the witness replied.
Mr. McCourt died in 1903
Clarence s. Mcclellan was the next wit
familiar with the handwriting of the late
Alfred Hall Duncombe, expressed the opin-
ion that the signature upon the first ex-
hiblt was not that of Duncombe, and that
partly burned "wilr was also spurious.
AT the call of Mr. Leavitt the defendant
then produced as further exhibits the Ave
deeds of conveyance dated January 30, 1889,
under which Mr.. Duncombe had made over
his real estate to Eunice E. Mcclellan.
Clarence s. Mcclellan, the banker, testified
that the signatures Of Mr.. Duncombe upon
these were genuine and that he had per-
sonally seen Mr.. Duncombe sign them. Mr..
Mcclellan said that he had prepared these
deeds under Mr.. Duncombe's instructions,
and had them in his possession prior to
the dates of their being recorded At the
same time, the witness said, he had also
prepared the deeds reconveying the prop
critics from Eunice E. Mcclellan, his Sis
ter-in-law. back to Naomi Duncombe, as
Mr. Duncombe had desired.
did Mr.. .Duncombe give these instruc-
lions personally to your asked Mr.. Lea
witt.
q! believe so. to my best recollection"
Mr.. Mcclellan admitted that some Of
these deeds were later brought to his Of
fee by Mrs. Naomi Duncombe. and then
LedVltt asked. state Wnetner or NOT
it is the fact that Mr.. Duncombe handed
those deeds to you in escrow with instruc-
tons not to deliver them to any one ex-
cept upon his further instructions"
HE did not" was ar. McClellans en-
phatic reply. "Mr. Duncombe took the
deeds with him."
Plaintiff having failed to establish the va
lidity of the partly burned will" counsel
for the defendants at this point moved to
dismiss the complaint and the court so or
dered.
There the litigation rested on June and
until Mr.. Leavitt served papers few days
ago In suit for damages, naming Mr.. Nc
Clellan and Patrick J. Ring as defendants.