Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-07-16
Expenses Involved in Will Con-
test Must Be Borne by
Sons, Court Holds.
ESTIMATED AT between
$4,000 AND $780, 900
Applications for Counsel Fees and
Costs Denied by Justice
Stafford.

The expenses involved in the litiga-
tion over the will of Stilson Hutchins
millionaire newspaper founder. vari-
| ously estimated as between 100000
and $150,000, are not to be deducted
from the estate. but must be borne by
the two sons Of the deceased, accord
ing to the portions incurred by each.
Justice Stafford so decided today when
he denied a petition of Walter Stilson
Hutchins to allow counsel fees and
costs incurred by himself and Charles
L. Frailey in defending the last will
of Mr.. Hutchins against the successful
attack of the younger son, Lee Hutch
ins.
"As I view this litigation" said the
court, "it is a contest between two
brothers, Lee Hutchins and Walter
Hutchins, and as this case Is situated
see no reason why each party should
not pay his own expenses Of this pro-
ceeding.
''If it should be said that It was the
duty of Walter Hutchins to PROFOUND
this will and to attempt to have 1t es-
tablished, I think it may with equal
Lee Hutchins to resist its establish
ment. Especially must that be SO In
view of the result. since the jury has
found that the will ought not to be ad-
mitted to probate.
Not Fair to Widow and Other Heirs.
'If it were possible for the court to
allow the expenses of both sides Of this
litigation out of the estate. then a diff
l.ferent question would be presented, and
something might be said in favor of the
view that the expenses Of the cavea-
tees and the caveator ought both to
he al af no ~ ho
tate. But as I understand the law in
this jurisdiction that could not be done
II it could be done the question would
arise whether or not that would be
heir of this estate.
II think substantial Justice is worked
by disposing Of these matters in the
way Indicated. It will leave the bur-
den Of this litigation to fall upon the
two parties. the two real parties to the
litigation"
The court then signed a formal order
confirming the verdict of the jury rem
| and denied the petition for the probate
of the will From this order Messrs.
Hutchins and Frafley, the two execu-
tors propounding the will, and Walter
peal to the Court of Appeals. The
executors also noted an appeal from
the refusal of the court to allow their
costs. The court order denying pro-
09 te expressly omitted the usual dWdT q
of costs to the successful contestant.
Justice Stafford also refused a request
of counsel for Walter Hutchins for
allowance of fees out of the estate.
Lee Hutchins Dissatisfied.
Stilson Hutchins died April 21. 1912,
leaving three wills, the latest bearing
date of October, 1910. This document
! named as executors the two sons. Walter
and Lee Hutchins, and Charles L. Frailey
Lee Hutchins, dissatified with its pro-
| visions, refused to Join with the other
executors in a petition to probate the will
and filed caveat-
The case came up for trial before JUS
tice Anderson and occupied five months,
ending with the verdict breaking the will
At the trial six prominent members of the
bar. were engaged; two aiienists testified,
witnesses were brought from Europe and
other points and an expensive deposition
of Mrs. Rose Keeling Hutchins was taken
in New York.
The stenographers' bill for the rec
ord-breaking trial was $27,S175O. The
share of Lee Hutchins of this bill is
said to be $13,755: of Walter S. Hutch
ins, s11,452.50. and of Mrs. Rose Keel
ing Hutchins. $500. The fees of the
six lawyers are estimated at more than
100000. The taxable costs of the trial
will reach $2.500. and the alienists' ex-
penses another $2.500.
Lee Hutchins. the successful contest
ant, was represent by Attorneys Frank
]. Hogan, w. G. Johnson and Myer
Cohen. Walter Hutchins had as coun-
sci r. Ross Perry. E. H. Thomas and
Charles H. Merillat.
Suits by Stenographers.
Following the refusal of the court to
allow the stenographers' bill out of
the estate of Stilson Hutchins, John
W. Hulse and Henry l.. Bisselle. trad
ing as Smith & Hulse, court reporters.
began separate suits at law in the Dis
trict Supreme Court against Walter S.
Hutchins and Mrs Rose Keeling Hutch
ms for their respective shares of the
expense of reporting the trial Of the
will contest.
Attorney George L. Whitford. for the
stenographers. explained that Lee
Hutchins had made provision for set
thing his portion of the Indebtedness
and that he would not be sued.