The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1920-05-09

fact she had been notified that existed.
Had she been shown an actual WILL she shown
q paper, or notified that there paper, which you
claimed to be wilt" asked the Justice
'.She was notified that will existed, and sent
copy Of that will, said Horsey
would you pretend this Court, said the Justice
sernl that you would expect the widow to accept as
her husbands w In which he leaves his estate to an
other woman, paper writing merely purportng to be
copy not certified or introduced to her by friendly adj
viser but by one whom she might well consider as I'M
friendly to heri"
"But she says''-repled Horsey in confusion
eve have before in the brief what she says said
the Chief Justice You need not repeat it. 1t is quite
evident the widow practiced no fraud and was within her
rights
Nico and Horsey looked at each other in dsmay. One
after another of their arguments had been punctured
beyond repair by the quick common sense OF the Justices
1t had not proved to gory the claims and stand
ing of Mrs Thomas and her suspicious Twill be-
little 1.-THE Shonts woman
Then Horsey handed in quite peppery typewriter
ing out Mrs. Shonts and putting Amandas friends up
into the saddle and especially dgnifyng the will with
much Importance.
In this brief Horsey had good deal to say about how
badly Mrs Shonts and her lawyers had behaved
There had been number of queer things happen after
Mr. Shonts died and before the widow made her appica
ton to be appointed administrative to look after the
estate Mrs Shonts's son-in-law, Mr. Rutherford Bng
ham, had had curious experience with lawyer named
s. Stanwood Menken. Mr.. Bingham, in an affidavit,
swore that Menken produced document which he had
obtained from lawyers the other side and which was
pretended to be a copy of the last will of Shonts.
Mr. Menken also had copy of what was alleged to be
the of the estate amounting to- as nearly as Mr.
Bingham could remember, approximately 100000 Mr.
Menken then sad or less, as follows according to
}ir. Bingham:
made according to this alleged WILL would amount 10
approximately 100000.
THAT he (Menken had had an offer from the oppos-
ing attorneys make settlement by which Mrs Shons
might possibly obtain by skiful negotiation on his
Menken ~ part possibly half of the resduary estate or
$4,000.
"Further that if Mrs Shonts did accept this set
Element that he had been informed that Mr. Edwin Ber-
wind coal operator and large stakeholder in the Inter
borough Rapid Transit Company, possessed claim OF
approximately 100000 against the Shonts estate result
ing from joint brokerage account that he had had with
the late Theodore P. Shonts.
THAT in case Mrs Shonts did not contest the will he
would waive and annu his claim against the estate but
that in Mrs Shonts did not accept the settlement
offered that Mr. Berwnd would press his claim, thus
completely wpng the alleged residuary estate. so
that Mrs Shonts would get nothing. Mr. Berwind was
alleged to be willing to waive his claim in order to pre-
vent any publicity attaching to the name OF his dead
friend.
"Mr. Menken further urged me not to inform Mrs
Shonts of the conversation just described.
Menken filed affidavit denying this, and Horsey
discussed the matter in his printed brief which he handed
in to the Judges.
Horsey finally reached such state Of indignation at
the msdeeds of Mrs Shons and her lawyers that he SAID
1T would be charitable to believe that some pro
nounced infrmity Of mind and memory must have obht
Grated all recollection Of the actual facts when the appel
liant MRS. Shonts) verified her petition on November o,
1919 and when she verified her answering affidavit on
November 49, 1919 which reiteraes and seeks to JUSTIFY
the false suggestion Of material facts set forth her
petition for letters of temporary administration -,
It charitable for the chivalrous gentleman (Sur-
rogate Fowe) presiding in the court below to ignore he
apparent fraud and base his decision upon the techna
ground Of mistaken assumption by the court that the
decedent died ntesate but considerations OF charity
chvary require that the appellants attorneys OF rec
ord this should be excused from answering for
their participation in the deception practiced on the court
below and upon this court"