New-York tribune., 1920-02-22
Mrs. Cowan. Files Her Com
plant; Values Estate at
$2O,OOO,O 900; Demands
Accounting of the Widow
Wants Sales Stopped
Action Is Based OH Mutual
Documents That Left
All to Each 9th e r


plaint in the Supreme Court yester-
day in the action brought by her for
the estate Of her former husband, on
which she places value Of $20,o00,000.
Mrs. Cowan, now the wife Of Ken
meth Cowan, a broker, besides asking
for that amount as damages, demands
an accounting of the estate from the
defendants, Mrs. Florence S. Harkness,
widow of Mr.. Harkness, who, with John
w. MacMiller, is named as defendant, as
being the executors Of the estate. An
injunction is sought also to stop the
executors from disposing of any prop
erty left by the testator
AS previously indicated. Mrs. Cowan
by her when she was still Mrs. Hark-
ness, and her husband, under agreement,
in which documents each left all to the
other.
Allegations Over Will
While the will to that effect made by
Mr.. Hardness on November s, 1909,
seven years before their divorce, is
the basis of Mrs. Cowan's claim, she
goes further by alleging that the death
bed will executed by Mr.. Hardness on
January %, 1919, leaving his estate to
his second wife, is invalid and Il
fraud" She charges in the complaint
that he was unconscious at the time
and incapable mentally and physically
of signing it. The witnesses to the
document, she asserts, signed it
neither in his nor each others pres
ence, and that it was all done in face
of declaration by Mr.. Harkness that
he did not want any such testament
drawn up.
She alleges that the probate Of the
document was procured through fraud
Hardness at the time Of the alleged
forced signing" According to the
complaint, Mrs. Cowan states that Mrs.
Hardness and Mr.. MacMiller had full
knowledge that the will was invalid
and that it was drawn up and probated
with intent to perpetrate fraud"
Mrs. Cowan also refers to an agree
ment made between her, while she was
still the wife Of Mr.. Harkness, and him,
concerning the making of the mutual
Wills. One of the provisions Of this
agreement, she ass ,rts, was that the
Wills executed under this agreement
copies Of the will executed by husband
and wife are made part of the papers
filed by Mrs. Cowan. the agreement re-
ferred to was not filed. 1t was stated
by Charles T. Lark, of her counsel,
that it was verbal and that it would be
proved by witnesses.
First Harkness Document
The first will Of Mr.. Hardness, as
filed by Mrs. Cowan and under which
she claims his estate, reads:
Il, Harry Stephen Hardness, Of the
City, County and State of New York,
revoking and canceling any and all
prior Wills and codicils by me at any
time made, do hereby make, publish
and declare this my last will and
testament.
~ give, devise axd bequeath to my
wife, Marie Elizabeth Harkness, of
the City, County and State of New
York, all my property Of whatsoever
sonal or mixed, and any interest
therein of which l may have the
power to dispose.
"The foregoing disposition is made
in the full confidence and expectation
that in case l shall have a child born
after the making Of this will, either
in my lifetime or after my death, the
same gill be suitably provided for by
my witt.
II hereby nominate, constitute and
appointedsaid Marie Elizabeth Hark-
| ness my sole executriX, without
bonds"
The witnesses to the execution Of the
foregoing document were Arnon l.
Squiers, 1922 Dean Street, Brooklyn:
William Collins Marsh, 391 Greene
Avenue. Brooklyn. and Charles S.
Foote, 208 West Forty-fourth Street.
Basis for Agreement
The consideration for the agreement
upon which Mrs. Cowan places great
reliance to prove her CLAIM to the es-
tate Of the late millionaire was their
Glove and affection" Whether an
agreement made with this consideration
continues to be binding after such
couple have been divorced is one point
which the Supreme Court will be called
upon to decide. 1t is certain that if
Mr.. Hardness left any real estate the
second Mrs. Hardness could not be de-
prived of her dover interest in that by
any agreement which her husband made
with his first wife.
The question will be decided also by
the court whether Mr.. Hardness did not
mean in making the alleged agreement
with the provision respecting it's irrcvo-
cability that the will was not to be
revocable while the first Mrs. Hardness
continued as his wife. 1t was inti-
mated, on the other hand, that attor-
neys for Mrs. Hardness will contend
that the interlocutory decree of divorce
released Mr.. Harkness from all further
obligation to the present Mrs. Cowan
and nulliied the alleged mutual wills.
Mrs. Cowan, in presenting this part
of her complaint, says that she had
considerable property at the time
while the elder Hardness was alive and
her husband had not yet come into the
Lamon V. Harkness estate. Her atti-
tude toward the widow throughout the
paper is illustrated by the reference
that "the defendant, Florence S. Hark-
ness, claims to have married the said
Harry S. Hardness subsequent to his
being divorced by the plaintiff"
1t is also shown that Mrs. Cowan be-
came estranged from Mr.. Hardness in
February, 1916, and that they were not
divorced until October of the next
year, having lived apart for more than
year and eight months.
Witnesses Of Document
William Collins Marsh, one Of the
signers Of the mutual documents, was
contractor and close friend Of Lamon
V. Harkness and had known Harry s.
Harkness when boy. Marsh died on
October 8. 1914
Arnon L. Squiers was an alderman
and ia now q iusfice of +ha S,Drar,o