Milford chronicle., 1922-06-23
WILL IS A FORGERY
THE REGISTER SAYS
(continued from first PAGE


all of the evidence, particularly that
of Webster A. Melcher,. handwriting
expert. produced on behalf of the ca
veator which evidence the prOponent
declined to answer, I 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.
Kinney, and, further, from the evil
dence in this case am of the opinion
that the said signature was not, attest
ed and subscribed in the presence Of
William S. Kinney, by Nathaniel Con-
away and Alvin L. Marvel, the sub
scribing witnesses to said instrument
of writing, nor were their signatures
affixed to the attestation clause at the
request of or in the presence of Will
liam S. Kinney, nor on the day ana
time sworn to by them.
"In the disposition of the costs
herein, 1 am guided by the overwhelm-
ing testimony in the case, which clear
" shows that there has been a bold
and unscrupulOus effort to gain pos
session of the property of the deceas-
ed by persons acting for and on be-
half of the propOnent of the will. No
testimony has been offered by the pro-
ponent except the formal testimony OF
the testamentary witnesses. The evil
dence of the caveator has not been
contradicted, nor was there any at
tempt to contradict or explain it. The
proponent of the will, the wife of the
deceased, did not take the stand to
make any explanation of the facts and
circumstances affecting her most Vi
tally. It is impossible to escape the
conclusion that the proponent OF the
will knew, or had had reasonable
grounds to suspect, that some effort,
plan or scheme had been made and
prepared by some person or persons
and for her benefit, to obtain posses
sion of the property of the deceased,
and that being so, the casts should De
placed upon that party who has caus-
ed the litigation"
There was also a marriage contract
dated January 8, 1912, alleged to have
been witnessed by DR.. ]. N. John ana
N. H. Brown, SeafOrd citizens, Doth
of whom are dead, and attached to
this contract is a judgment note IN
favor of the widow for $4,000 with
interest, amounting at the, time OF
Kinney's death to about $4,000. These
papers, Mrs. Kinney says, were given
to her by her late husband ten days
previous to his death.
Webster A. Melcher, the handwrit-
ing expert, stated in his testimony
that the same person, or persons who
signed the name of W. S. Kinney to
the will dated December 1, 1921, also
signed Kinney's name to the judgment
note and the names of the witnesses.
DR.. J. N. Johns and N. H. Brown.
The costs in the case as ordered by
Register of Wills Mustard is to be
paid by Mrs. Kinney, amounting to
over $3.50.
This case has attracted statewide
attention and is the first case of its
kind ever to come up in Sussex coun-
ty. |t
Sorin M. Kinney, the caveator, has
petitioned the Sussex county court to
set aside the judgment note of $4,000
and has placed the original will, dated
December 2, 1915, in the Office of the
Register of Wills to be prObated. The
estate of Kinney is estimated to be
worth $4,000.