Smyrna times., 1922-06-21
DISPUTED KINNEY WILL IS
FORGERY REGISTER ASSERTS
HAND WRITING EXPERTS TESI-
MONY FIGURES AT SEAFORD
Widow Pays All the COsts-Judge-
ment Note for $4,000 Held to Have
Been Falsely Signed, a Forgery

Been Falsely Signed, a Forgery
A decision was handed down We'd
nesday by Register of Wills, William
J. Mustard, of Sussex county, in the
celebrated William S.Kinney will case.
His decision was that the will of De-
cember l, 1921, witnessed by Alvin L.
Marvel and Nathaniel Conaway, both
of SeafOrd, leaving all of his estate
to his widow, Mary f. Kinney, of Sea-
ford, except 5000, which went to his
only son, SOrin NJ. Kinney, of Hous-
ton, Kent county, was forgery This
will named his widow and son as
executors. Mr.. Kinney, who was a
wealthy retired Seaford farmer, died
December %, 1921, and was buried
December of the same year. On the
day of his funeral his will, drawn by
H. w. Baker, vice-president of the
First National Bank of Seaford, and
witnessed by Walter T. Wallace and
Harper Mather, both of Seaford, was
read at his late home by Mr.. Baker in
the presence of his son and widOY.
SOrin NJ. Kenney was his son by a
former marriage. This will was
drawn in December 1915 and left all
the estate to his son, except 81 900
and other stipulated sums which the
deceased man had paid his widow. A
few days after the reading of this
will, the will of December l, 1921, was
brought forward and read to the son
by a prominent attorney of George
town. Alvin L. Marvel, who swore he
prepared this will at Kinney's request,
is brother of the widow who is the
principal beneficiary by this will.
Full Decision of Register Mustard
Register of Wills Mustard's decision
is as follows: "An examination of the
alleged signature of William S. Kin
ney shows beyond doubt that the
same is made by ssme unnatural or
artificial method, and, after carefully
considering all of the evidence, par
ticularly that of Webster A. Melche. j,
a handwriting expert, produced on be-
half of the caveatOr, which evidence
the proponent declined to answer
am clearly of the opinion that William
S. Kinney did not sign the said instru-
ment 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 direc-
tion of William S. Kinney, and, furth-
/ . l,o -, Il
am of the opinion that the said sig
nature was not attested and subscrib-
ed in the presence of William S. Kin
ney, by Nathaniel Conaway and Alvin
L. Marvel, the subscribing witnesses
to said instrument of writing, nor
were their signatures affixed to the at
testation clause at the request of OF
in the presence of William S. Kinney
nor on the day and time sworn to by
them. ''In the disposition of the costs
herein, | am guided by the over
whelming testimony in the case, which
clearly shows that there has been ;
bold and unscrupulous effort to gaiT
possession of the property of the de
ceased by persons acting for and OF
behalf of the proponent of the will
No testimony has been offered by tn,
proponent except the formal testimo
ny of the testamentary witnesses
The evidence of the caveator has no
been contradicted, nor was there an!
attempt to contradict or explain it
The proponent of the will, the wife o
the deceased, did not take the stant
to make any explanation of the fact
and circumstances affecting her mos
vitality. 1t is impossible to escape tn
conclusion that the proponent of tn
will knew, or had had reasonabl
grounds to suspect, that some effort
plan or scheme had been made an
prepared by some person or person
and for her benefit, to obtain posses
sion of the property of the deceased
and that being so, the costs should b
placed upon that party who has eau;
ed the litigation"