The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-06-27
EXECUTORS OF EMO
REFUSED VERDICT
Will Contestants Win Point,
and Surrogate Critfcises
Burning Of Letters.
REQUIRES EXPLANATION

Tho contestants in the Amos F. Emo
will case won an important point yester-
day when Surrogate Cohalan denied the
application Of counsel for the executors.
Lucius n. Beers and william Mitchell, TO
dismiss the contest and admit the will
TO probate after the testimony for the
contestants had been concluded. Wallace
Macfarlane for Columbia University, the
residuary legatce, argued that the con-
testants had failed TO prove their charges
OF undue influence or mental incapacity.
In denying the application to dismiss
the Surrogate gave the counsel Tor the
executors permission TO renew the appli-
cation after they have concluded their
which will begin to-day with
the examination Of the first OF about
nifty witnesses.
In denying the application the surro-
gate told Mr.. Macfarlane that the act OF
John L. Merz. law clerk in the office or
Mr.. Beers. in going 10 the Emo residence
and burning papers the day after MS
death required an explanation by MI.
Beers. Joseph n. tseoate. Jr. counsel
for the proponents OF the Will, insisted
i'm his argument that II Mr.. MNz had
had any wrongful purpose in destroying
the papers he would not have done so In
tho presence of Mrs. Des Ferrins. the
housekeeper.
why does a murderer leave traces"
asked the Surrogate. THE destroying
Of the papers requires an explanation by
MIR. Beers. The first duty OF an executor
is to conserve and not to destroy the
property Of the tcstator."
Mr.. Macfarlane argued that there wno
no importance in the act or Nerz, and
that the contestants had not proved that
their interests.
Why were they destroyed asked the
Surrogate In reply.
John y. S;anchheld. in opposing The
motion to dismiss. said the contestants
had proved both undue influence nd
mental !~ncapacity. lie said undue in
lnence was not always susceptible ~
direct proof because those who set out
70 use undue influence do not work IN
the open. He pointed out the testimony
as TO Mr.. Eno's DISLIKE for colleges IN
general and Of Or. Nicholas Murray
Butter Of Columbia in particular. and OF
the absence of mention of Columbia IN
the will drawn the year before the final
!nstruman; was executed which gave az
least $4,000. 600 10 Columbia.
somewhere. somehow. and by come
one said Mr. S~tanchHe!d. "a great
change was wrought and an ey;raordl-
nary inhuen' . was used IN bringing aboI,
his change"
He said thai the one motive vas 20
destroy tho proof of afre 'ior that eX-
!-tcd between Mr. Enc and his next ~
kin who are cou'es'inE his Wi, an
that NerZ knew that the ~lo'ters de-
stroyed would have an important boar
Ing on this point. His act was a WI
ful and deliberate intention" 90 destroy
the family correspondence as tho strong
est kind Of evidence that good relations
still existed
THE performance was urNre""de"'"f
and ceuuo. he found IN the hooks or -
the history ~ The courts ~ New YORK;
Mr. S'anchHnld sad
The last witnesses for the contestants
were Dr. William r. prltchard and Dr
Max G. Schlarp. alienists Both believe
Nj. Emo had senile demsnt'a pr.
Schlapp said ono Of the sigma - to-
meu'!t was Mr. Eno's refusal 80 eat
strawberries because they cost too ma j.
hut he said the dercdent's opposite -
his rerhews, CHORD and Amos Ptncho',
because they supported Roosevelt, was
not n sign ~ nontal decay.