Norwich bulletin., 1913-11-18
ADMfNIsT RAToR ASKS COURT
 TO INTERPRET WILL
Are Conditions Imposed by the Late John Moon Void or Otherwise?

What the construction of the will of the late John Moon of New London, who died Oct. IA, 1898, should be, and whether certain provisions in it are or are not void as against public policy and private morals, are asked in a suit brought in the superior court by Charles H. Daboll of New London, administrator and trustee under the will Jesse A. Moon and Willard B. Moon, two sons of the deceased, are made defendants in the case. A third son, John Ii. Moon, who was named as a beneficiary in the will, died June g, 1899, which is since his fathers death.
 The particular provision in the will of John Moon, which presents some unusual features in the case, is the following: Upon the death of the pres ent wife of Willard B. Moon, or if he shall obtain divorce from her, or shall become separated from her at the end of a year from said divorce or separation, or if within said year he shall become married to a good re- spectable woman. then, in either of said events Willard B. Moon shall be entitled to and shall receive the in come and profit of a certain trust fund created from one-half the estate, but if Willard B. Moon shall ever return to live with his present wife his lns terest in said trust shall be diVested and he shall not be entitled to any of the benefits thereof. It is also provided in the language of the will that if Will lard B. Moon shall have married a good respectable woman and shall have issue by her the income of the trust fund shall go to said issue upon the death of Willard B. Moon, or, fail ing that, to Jesse A. Moon. his heirs and assigns.
 One-half of the estate was devised to Jesse H. Moon upon condition that he pay John H. Moon the sum of $1.50 per week during the latter's life.
 The administrator. who is the plain tiff in the present case, claims that he is ready and willing to convey said tions, first, whether the provisions of said will requiring Willard B. Moon to become separated from his wife, by divorce or otherwise. as a condition to prevent the enjoyment by him or his heirs of any gift or devise under said will is or is not void as against public policy and private morals; second, whether or not the trust created, or at- tempted to be created, in said will failed upon the death of said John H. Moon; third. in the event of said trust being adjudged to be imperative or invalid, or to have failed, then to whom and in what proportions the residue of said estate belongs, and on what tenure; and. fourth, whether any portion of the estate has become in- testate.
 A previous suit was brought a year ago by Willard B. Moon vs. Charles B. Daboll, administrator, and Jesse A. Moon, in which it was alleged that the testator, John Moon, was unduly and unlawfully prejudiced against the present wife of Willard B. Moon and that any gift or devise sought to be made under the conditions in the will is null and void, and asking that the estate, which has been treated as a trust fund, be allowed to take it's course according to the laws of inher- itance It was also claimed that the one-h half of the estate originally con veyed in trust to Jesse A. Moon be de- clared to be intestate property and subject to distribution by the probate court,