Evening journal., 1922-06-15
Will, FORGERY,
REGISTER SAYS.
Decision Is Handed Down
in William S. Kinney
Contested Case
ABOUT $4,000
is INVOLVED
speclal to The EvenIng Journal.

Special to The Evening Journal.
SEAFORD, June 15.-Register OF
Wills William J. Mustard, in a deci-
sion handed down in the William S.
Kinney. contested will case. holds
that the alleged will dated December
]. 1921, was a forgery. This will
alleged to have been Witnessed by
Alvin L., Marvel and Nathaniel Coma
way both of Seaford, left all of the
estate to the widow of the deceased.
/ Mary e. Kinney, of Seaford, except
| 5000 to his only son. Sorin NJ. Kin
ney, of Houston, Kent county, and
named the widow and son as eXecu-
tors. This case has attracted con-
siderable attention in Sussex county.
Mr. Kinney. who was a wealthy
retired Seaford farmer, died Decem-
Der 20, 1921, and was buried Deem
Der of the same year. On the day
OF his funeral. his will. drawn by II.
w. Baker. vice-president of the First
National bank of Seaford, and wit
messed by Walter T. Wallace and !
Harper Mather. both of Seaford was
read at his late home by NJ. Bakor (
IN the presence of his son and widow. I
Sorin NJ. Kinney was his sor by a /
former marriage. This will was |
drawn in December 1915 and left all !,
the estate to his son. except $1,000 |
and other stipulated sums which the (
deceased man had paid mis- widow. /
few days after the reading Of this [
Will, the will of December /, 1921,
was brought forward and read to
the son by prominent attorney Of
Georgetown. Alvin L. Marvel, who
swore he prepared his will Mt Kin
ney's request, is a brother of the
widow who is the principal bene-
fciary by this will
Register of Wills Mustard's de-
clsion is as follows:
"An examination of the alleged
$ gnature of William S. Kinney shows
beyond doubt that the same is made
by some unnatural or artificial
method. and. after carefully con-
sidering all of the evidence, partic-
ularly that of Webster A. Melcher,
a handwriting expert, produced on
behalf of the caveator. which evil
dence the proponent declined to an
swer. am clearly of the opinion
that william S. Kinney did not sign
the said instrument of writing, and
that the alleged signature thereto is
a forgery, nor was it signed by some
person In the presence of or by the
express direction OF William s. Kin
ney. and, further. from the evidence
In this case I am OF the opinion that
the said signature was not attested
and subscribed in the presence OF
William s. Kinney. by Nathaniel
Conaway and Alvin L. Marvel, the
subscribing witnesses to said lnstru-
ment of writing, nor were their sig
natures affixed to the attestation
clause at the request Of or in the
presence OF William S. Kinney, nor
on the day and time sworn to by
them.
I'm the disposition Of the costs
herein, am guided by the over
testimony in the case,
which clearly shows that there has
been a bold and INSCRIPTIONS ef-
fort to gain possession Of the prop
arty of the deceased by persons act
ing for and on behalf of the pro-
oonent of the will. No testimony
has been ouered by the proponent
Except the formal testimony of the
witnesses. The evil
ience OF the caveator has not been
nor was there any at
empt to contradict or explain II.
rhe proponent OF the will. the wife
" the deceased, did not take the
tand to make any explanation OF
he facts and circumstances affect
ng her most vitality. II IS impos-
ible to escape the conclusion that
he proponent OF the will knew, or
lad had reasonable grounds to sus-
ect. that some effort. plan or scheme
ad been made and prepared by
ONE person or persons and for her
eneft to obtain possession of the
roperty OF the deceased. and that
eing so. the costs should be placed