Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1915-08-25
ECCLES WILL IN PROBATE COURT
Petitions Presented Tuesday by Rhode Island Hospital Trust
Company Of Psovidenee and by the United Workers Of
Norwich Court Asked 10 Appoint Trustee 10 Hold
Lesaces Claimed by Rock Nook Home Opposition by
William B, Eeeles Of Lancashire, Ensland-Deeision
Reserved and Adjournment Taken Until September &

create no trust whatever In regard
10 those legMeles, and that there being
no trust created. there can be there
fore, no trustee appointed to take those
On the ether hand. the Rhode Island
Hospital Trust Co and the United
Workers both claim that a charity
has been created In the gift Of those
lesaeiee. or public nature that must
be carried out by a trustee TO be ap-
pointed, The case occupied the atten-
ton OF the probate court until the
hour OF adjournment at AS0 o'clock.
The subject was discussed and argued
by all OF the lawyers engaged in the
case ON the one side and on the other.
Many Connecticut cases OF a kindred
nature decided by the supreme Court
OF the state, were cited and urged by
both sides as settling the questions in
VOWED.
Claims Court Ass Ne Jurisdiction.
William b. Eccles filed papers in
the nature Of plea to the jurisdic-
ton OF the court, claiming that the
Probate Court had no Jurisdiction
whatsoever over the two petitions that
had been presenteds that those petit
tons asked in effect and required the
court OF probate TO construe the will OF
John Eccless that the court of probate
has no right or authority to construe
a will on any direct application solely
pendent Of a vested authority in the
court, that Is being exercised to which
construction of q will comes as requi-
site and incidental.
The counsel for William 3. Eccles
claimed that the direct authority to
construe q will was vested exclusively
in the superior court as one of the
equity powers of that court, and that
decisions of the highest courts in Con-
necticut had repeatedly held that the
court of probate could not assume
that authority and power, so that the
two petitions before the court were
without legal sanction and opposed 20
the Connecticut decisions on that sub
5ect. 1t was urged by the counsel for
William B. Eccles that the dispute be-
ing one requiring the construction Of a
viii to ascertain its legal meaning, 1t
was the duty of the Rhode Island Hos
pital Trust company, the executors, to
proceed by petition to the superior
court to construe and define the true
meaning of the will and the true and
authoriated respective rights of the
parties under 1t.
It was also claimed that the case
had not reached in the probate court
the stage where any vested authority
in the probate court was being exer-
cised to which construction of the will
was requisite and Incidental
Various other objections were raised
to the proceedings in the probate court
BY the petitioners that appeared to be
of equal importance to the ones men
toned.
Adjourned Until Next Week.
Arthur NJ Brown of Norwich and
Lawyer Collins of Providence appear
ed for the Rhode Island Hospital Trust
Company, the executors, John P.
Huntington represented the United
Workers and the counsel appearing for
William z. Eccles were William II.
Shields, of Norwich, Charles w. Gross
of Hartford, Hadlai A. Hull of New
London and William H. Shields, Jr., of
Norwich.
The matter was fully heard on the
legal questions that were raised. A
hearing on the facts involved in the
two petitions was not had. that hear
ing being entirely dependent upon the
decision that shall be rendered by the
probate court on the questions raised
as to the Jurisdiction of the probate
court. The probate court reserved its
decision and adjournment of the court
was taken until Saturday. Sept. f.