The New York herald., 1922-03-13
why have JURES?
|; |: ASK Emo CASE MEN
Itt ------------------
sii
.:Write Letter to Surrogate
I. Foley Protesting Against
4. Reversal.
al
TWILL Is V0IDED TWICE
4.
They Suppose Verdict May
I. BE Set Aside Again at
\ Third Trial.
THEIR STAND DEFENDED
'Only Incapacity of Testator
H Could BE Deduced From Evi-
I. dence, They Contend.

", Eight Jurors of the twelve that sat
sin the Emo will case before Surrogate
sJames A. Foley wrote in earnest pro-
Test to the Surrogate yesterday against
THE viii on the score of Mr.. Eno's un-
sound mint at the time the document
was drawn.
Pointing out that their jury decided
IS tie 1915 jury had decided-which
verdict was also set aside by the Sur
rogate-the eight protestants assume
that the court may throw out the jury
verdict in third trial. They ask Sur
rogate Foley what is the use of juries
IL this sort of tting is to occur.
The eight that signed the letter are
Louis T. Perkins. Henry Nichols. Harry
D Nuremberg, Raymond /. Montgom-
cry, Joseph M. McGrann, James Forster,
=. a. Bocckel and John J. Garvey. After
expressing surprise that I'm his opinion,
the Surrogate referred to the Emo jury
as easily influenced by. sympathy or
prejudice and materially affected by
extraneous arguments" after taking oc-
NsfSioh III ils GHdISc 10 praise the Jury
Tor the patience and attention il dis
played for six weeks In hearing the evil
dence, and after informing the Surrogate
that they had tried honestly to give a
verdict which was fair unbiased and
IN accordance with the law and the
facts. the eight went into details.
As to ethics of the matter they say:
Whether the right of trial by Jury
should extend to will cases Is not an
NC
your Honor. We happen to believe in
trial by jury. But this letter is to say,
mat in our opinion the evidence pro-
duced in this case and the law as laid
down by yourself permitted no verdict
except the verdict OF incapac,ty"
Thereafter Mr.. Perkins and his asso-
ciates. in the protest at upsetting the
decision which took away from Column
bia University and gave to Amos Pinchot
and other kin OF Mr.. Emo millions of
dollars, rccite their SPECIFIC reasons for
aeciding that Mr. Emo was not COM
petent TO make new will
l.--Burden OF the proof was on
the proponents. TIE proponents pro-
duced no documentary or other evidence
which could possibly explain, on any
theory but irrationality, the sudden
change shown in the will Of 1915 as
compared with the provisions in all Of
the preceding Wills.
For many years the institution
around which the testator's interest
centered was the General Society Of
Mecftnics and Tradesmen. and yet in
the viii of 1915 this favorite institution
was subordinated to five Institutions
which had never before appeared in HIS
Wills, and the bequest to Il was nadc
contingent upon previous payments In
full tc all the other five institutions.
Word to Housekceper cited.
"c--Mr. Emo told his housekeeper
lhat he expected the bequests in his will
would practically exhaust the estate.
In the win itself doubt Is expressed
whether the estate will be sufficient to
pay the bequests Mr.. Enos diary
~Shows that he estimated his estate at
eight millions net. He made bcquests
amounting to seven and three-quarter
millions. Thus, according to his cal
culations, there would only have been a
quarter Of n million III tho residuary
estate An error like this. amounting TO
millions. would never have been made
by the testator while possessed OF his
normal faculties.
a--You have deplored the fact that
the Jury laid stress upon Mr.. Eno's sus-
sertibility. We did lay stress upon Il,
FOR suggestibility. according to the un-
contradcted medical evidence I'm the
case, Is an important symptom OF de-
nentfa.
"5.--Tho above Gre outstanding
points. There is a mass OF other ev-
idence showing the change in the testa-
tor as well as mental incapcrity.
From your opinion. we understand
that upon the first trial OF this case the
jury decided the same way In the
second; that Is 10 say. against the 1915
Will. and that the verdict was set aside
BY the court. just as our verdict has
been. Accordingly, we suppose that the
same thing may happen in a third trial
and 30 on, which necessarily brings up
tho question: why have juries?'
When copy OF the letter wax read
70 Surrogate Foley last night he re-
fused to comment on Il In any way.