New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-11-19
the alleged residuary estate. so that
Mrs. Shonts would get nothing"
prOnosal Aroused Susni~ion

the alleged residuary estate, so that
Mrs. Shonts would get nothing"
Proposal Aroused Suspicion
Mr.. Bingham added: "Mr. Menken
seemed very anxious to have Mrs.
Shonts accept the settlement above
spoken and argued for it so strongly
that the impress ion gradually formed
in my mind that he was not a proper
person to safeguard the interests of
Mrs. Shcnts. This was further strength
ened by the unusual attitude which
was informed. as above stated, had
been adopted by Mr.. Berwind, and
further that Mr.. Menken. in urging
settlement, stated that steps could be
taken by both parties to avoid publicity
of the will, and that it need never be
offered for probate, and went on to say
that was the agreement he had en-
other side and the executors. His final
injunction was not to inform Mrs.
Shonts of the subject matter of this
conversation"
Mr.. Menken made an affidavit which
was to be placed OH the records with
permission of Surrogate Fowler in
case any of his statements were con-
troverted. In this document the at
torney said his Office entry showed he
had had three hours conversation
with Mrs. Shonts relative to proposed
action TO protect her rights. He said
Mrs. Shonts delivered to him a copy
of her hus bands will, which the ex-
ecutors had sent her. that he discussed
with Mrs. Shonts or Mr. Bingham every
arrangement made with Mr.. Sullivan,
representing the executors, and Judge
Shearn. representing Mrs. Thomas, and
all his actions were approved by Mrs.
Shonts and Mr.. Bingham.
Mrs. 'Shonts furnished the controvert-
ing statement spoken of by Mr.. Men
ken in offering his own affidavit. She
swore that any attempt by him to make
any bargain with the executors with
respect to delaying the probate of any
will. if made. was made without my
knowledge, information, consent or ap-
prevail"
Menken's Authority Denied
Mrs. Shonts added she never had
given Mr.. Menken authority to make
any settlement or compromise. Mrs.
Shonts denied she used any deception
or Misrepresentation in getting her ap-
portment as temporary administrators
and said she never received the copy of
tn" will of her husband which the ex-
ecutors say they sent to her. Mrs.
Bingham also denied receiving a copy
of the will
II understand" said Mrs. Shonts,
chat this court is primarily for the
purpose of protecting widows and or
rhans, and I appeal to this court for
protection from such baseless and
palpably false charges as are contained
In the petition of Delaney Nicoll, and
which appear to me to be inspire d
either by cupidity or malicious hos1il-
ity toward me, because of my effort
and desire to protect my interest and
that of my children and to conserve
the assets of the estate"
Mrs. Shonts also said, Il am informed
that Delaney Nicoll and E. J. Ber
wind, two of the executors, are on
friendly terms with Amanda c. Thomas,
named as residuary legatee and devisee
in the alleged last will of the said
Theodore ?. Shonts, and | am informed
that Il thorough investigation OF the
properties and assets of the deceased,
as they existed shortly before his
death, will be likely to disclose q much
larger estate than that stated in the
petition OF Delaney Nicoll."
Mr.. Nicoll made an affidavit which
supports the claim of Mrs Thomas to
the furnishing Of the Park Avenue
apartment and the farm house in Bucks
County, Pa. Mr.. Shonts made a bill
of sale to Mrs. Thomas on June II,
1919. which he said he executed for
the purpose Of assuring title and quiet
and peaceable possession by Mrs.
Thomas.