Norwich bulletin., 1918-11-20
WESTERLY


 as to whether the first will which has been proven, or what is alleged to be the second will Of Mary J. Crandall, should be recognized by the court and be probated. Soon after the first will was proven several months ago, a second will was produced and in open court Attorney Davis declared 1t to be forgery and it was stated that even another will had been drawn and be- lieved to be the last signed by Mrs. CFandalI, but which had not, been presented. This latter will it was sug gested, is either hidden, lost or des- troyed. This second will was exc euted i'll New Jersey and dispositions we're taken to substantiat9 it's legali- ty. At the previous session of the court the matter was continued to give lawyers in the case opportunity to prove that this second will. and
 practically admitted to be the final will, was not genuine and strictly le- gal It was set forth at that time. that there must be expert testimony in hand writing given, before the court would pass on the matter, Judge Burke | declining to permit, as conclusive, tho comparison by non experts of sigma 1 lures, which had not been positively proven to be genuine No question had been raised as to the geruineness of the first will but it was claimed that l the second or later will was the one 1 that ought to be admitted to probate. l There fore the contest was over the admission of the second will. Judge l Herbert W. Rathbufi, was counsel in l favor of the second will, aud Attorneys 1 Samuel H. Davis and Clarence D. Roche appeared in opposition.
 When this matter was reached on Tuesday afternoon, Mrs. Dora Wheel CT was called as witness. She had known Mrs Crandal1 for eighteen years and spent a winter at the home of witness IT. Mystic. Had heard Mrs. Netherwood, claimant under the sec- nnd will, spoken of in Gifrespect by Mrs. Clark. Mir. Rathbun objected and he was sustained on the ground that
 the contest was in the theory that the
 will was forgery. If on ground of ihcompetency or undue influence, that would change the condition. Then Mr. Roche claimed conten,ien on the ; grounds of undue influence and the tes- l timony was admitted. In July 1a' 1917 Mrs. Clarke said Mrs. Bessie Neither : wood treated her meanly and would 1 never get a cent of her money. Had f known Mrs Netherwood, of White l House, N. T., for sixteen years, but l had not seen her for several years Mrs CrandaU was In gooi health al | the time Mps. Netherwood produced , the second will.
 t Everett Barns paying teller Of the Washington Trust company, for twen- 5 ty-siX years, was questioned by At .4 torney Davis. He was called as ar expert to compare signatures of Mary r ]. Crandan. In his opinion the namt
 1 or both wills were not written by the ] same person. Whoever wrote the sec md will signed the name Of Mary ]
 l Cr1ndan. Nearly all the letters arc : 1 dissimilar and the pitch of the hand . is decidedly different. Tle enc sigma
 tpre was strained and the ether free
 He stated the signature CIp the frs
 1 will was that Of Mary J. CrandaH, aE he knew her signature. MT. Earns wa;
 of opinion that the sigpa,ur of Mrs : Crandall was made by the person who wrote the second willard inc name ot
 one of the witnesses. William Carr. When questioned by Attorney Rath- bun. Mr. Barns said he never before ! testified as G handwriting expect H. never saw the signatures before. bii
 1 knew the same person did not write both. A person in i'll health is liable ' to make different signatures but the
 general appearance is the same. /. IT ? his opinion the signature of Mrs ] CrandalI in inc first will is genuine . He did not think he was mistaken. bu there was always liability CT mistake Lewis Stanton. employed in the In , dustrial Trust cornnany. since 1904 | | and in banking business four wear previous. Had daily experience in ex ai1etning signatures. He was not fanlia with the signature. of Mary j. Gran l 'Ai. He examined the signatures 0
 En"th wills and said that in his opinion
 I they Were not written hN the sam Q :1erson. It was explained that the sig 1 nature Of thp first will hal I1een nroy l on genuine and he was asked if th
 ] slgAatiIra of the second win was th
 1 same He testified that under the con
 1 ditions he was sure the signature o ? the second will was not m8da bv Mar l. Crandall. There is nor apt to be ' i change in s'rs 4ture of q person 0 E the age of Mrs Crandall The sigma lure of the second will he did not be E lieve was nade by Mrs. Crandar. { \ sicnaturn of Mary '. CrandaH, left a inc hank for identification. was intro 5 fuced. Mr. stanton could rot testif 'h2t Mrs. Crandall wrote that sigma E fGre hut it was the guide at the banl n Mrs Crandalrs account
 Z Mrs. Martha awton, aunt of Mar 3 T. Cran3all and had lived in Westerl fer sixty five years, testified that sh < nd received letters and post card from Mrs. Crandal, which bore he H signature, and several of these wer E introduced. They were written by E Mrs. Crandail Other cards addresse E tn Mrs Dora Wheeler, bore the sam E similiaritv of Identification as compar E e1 with the s'cnatUre of the first vii not the one in contest.
 Ei In renly to queries from Judge Rath , bun. the witness said he never mad El study of text hooks or expert hand E writing. andP did not know recognize RI handwriting experts. hut knew ther H were some specialists in that line. II x had never before testified as an ex \ pert and his knowledge in that lin N vas gained in the banking busines E Genuine sigma lures would net vary S kfmuch as in these two wills. He base E his opinion on the general characte
 of the signatures, and not on any sing X letters.
 E Eueene E. Pendleton. n witness | E the first will, testified that he wa E familiar with Mrs. CrandaFs hand \ writing and that the signature on tF E second will was not that of MT E CrandaH
 Pl Mrs. Martha Lawton testified sr knew Mrs. Crandall from her birtt E After Mrs. Cranda1l had returned fro \ visit to Bessie Nethedwood. sf H said Bessie had user her mean ar \ would never go near her again. Be:
 sics husband was Mrs. Crandau E brother. and she signed over her ir E terest in her brothG's estate to Be. X sic. After that Mrs. Crandall said Be,
 sic did not use her right.
 A letter from Mrs. Bessie Nethel