The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1913-06-20
WATERMARx KEY
TO WILL CONTEST
Document 10 Be. Sent 10 NH
Where Psps; Was Made
s25O,OOO LEGACy At STAKE

State Of Tennessee interested In Fate
Of Mrs. Cloths 100000 Estats, Fer
Which No Heirs Appeared For eems
Time After Her Dsath-centsst into
Charge Forgery.
On the records Of the Southworth
Paper mill. at Mittineague. Mass.
which has manufactured for thirty
years q peculiar brand Of typewriter
paper exclusively for one typewriter
manufacturer, win depend whether F.
Bruce Garrett Of Memphis. Tenn, IL TO
get a 9250,O0O legacy under the will Of
Mrs. Caroline Cloth Of Shelby county.
Tenn.
The authenticity Of Q win disposing
Of q 100000 estate hinges on the
watsrmark Of the paper. The win a.
offered Ii dated 1893 Il bears Q va
termark NV. g. 4 b. Regent Linen"
The contestants contend that this
proves the win to be forgery, since
this watermark did not appear on re-
gent linen manufactured for WyckoR.
Eeamans 4 Benedict until 1900.
Archie Butler, manager Of the paper
department Of the Remington Type
writer company In New York city, the
corporation which succeeded the ilrn
Of wyckoff, Seamans 4 Benedict was
examined recently BY order Of the
Shelby county courts. Mr.. Butler pro-
nounced the paper to be genuine re-
gent linen and asserted that bis rec
ords showed that the watermark in
question was not used until 1900
Prior to that time, he said, the water
mark had been Regent Linen W., g.
4 B."
Severe Cross Examination.
Mr.. Butler was severely cross exam
ined by an attorney for Mr.. Garrett.
He admitted that 1t would be possible
to have counterfeited the watermark
had any paper manufacturer desired
to trade on the reputation Of regent
linen, but insisted that Il would have
been impossible to counterfeit the pa-
per- He said that no paper expert
could be deceived by any attempted
counterfeit Of paper which had been
the exclusive product Of certain mill
maintaining uniform quality by spe-
cial processes Of manufacture over :.
long period Of years. He said he had
no doubt that the paper was genuine
regent linen.
He said the question when the dase
Of the watermark was changed must
be decided at the mill which produced
It, the Southworth PAPER mill at Nit
tineague, Mass. With such large
amounts at stake the win, representa-.
tives Of the Remington Typewriter
company said, must be taken to Nit
tineague. When produced in court It
was under guard of commissioner.
How Will Was Diseevsrsd.
Mrs. Cloth, who made the will, left
two cousins, DIR. John NJ. Smaller and
his sister, and half dozen more re-.
mote cousins in Denver. She was the
widow Of Herman Cloth and increased
his estate Of 100000 by abstemious
living and judiclous Investments. The
witnesses to the will were dead when
Mr.. Garrett, the $250,000 heir under
its provisions, discovered 1t. Its au-
thenticity was not disputed until Miles
q. Buckinham, who had been Mrs.
Cloths business agent, held 1t up to
the light and saw the watermark.
which started him on search.
Before the Offering of the will by Mr..
Garrett proceedings had been institut-
ed by the state Of Tennessee to escheat
the estate because no heirs had ap-
peared. The heirs who are now fight
ing the will did not appear until 1t was
/ offered for probate