Year: 1875

preliminary hearing in regard to tho contested viii
OF the late Isaac w. Singer on in the surrogates
Court White Plains, Westchester county yesterday
The testator the inventor Of labor saving machine
which bears his and yielded him such q revenue
enable him TO leave estate valued at S13 Oo0


The testator was married to his FIRST wife, Catherine
Singer about the year 1890 BY her he had two chill
dren who still survive, and for whom he has to
xtent provided In 1s40 he procured divorce from
Catherine the ground OF adultery He then, IT seems
remarked and lived with his second wife and las she
claims) present widow, Mary Ann Singer also known
as Mary Ann Foster BY her the testator had ten
children, eight Of whom still living and 70 the
latter he beqneaths about 81 600 COO No provision
however, is made in the will for their mother, who, it
is understood was also divorced from tho testator
Deceased went to England in 1864 and is stated,
commenced relations with the resduary egatee under
the will Isabella Eugenia Singer who is never men
toned in the will except tho wife of the testaor
Since the year last named deceased had veo with this
lady by whomhe had six children who still living.
The testator in tho will recognizes only these latter
his legitimate children and their mother his wife.
He leaves her lifo interest in his English
estate estimated at s4 900 OOo together with ursx
teths of the residue OF his estate in America amount
ing to about $4,000 ooo Mrs Mary Ann Singer, who
/
claims that the legacies given in the will Mrs Isa-
bella Eugenia Singer nugatory and void because
the latter not his lawful wife and therefore not en-
titled to DOVER The counsel in the are ex-Judge
John X. Porter, with Charles 0Conor as advisory
counsel representing Mrs Isabella Eugenia Singer;
Reuben W. Van Pelt, OF Yonkers for Mrs. Mary Ann
Singer; and ]. c. Carter, OF New York. for David
Hawey, of Yonkers sole surviving executor the other
named in the will having since died 1t may here be
stated that Mrs Mary Ann Singer who claims TO be
the rghtul widow Of the testator the only one who
at present objects to the will being admitted probate
the claims of the legatecs having been
amlcaby adjusted The following is a copy of the OBJ
lection fled by counsel for the contestant


Mary Ann Singer, also known as Mary Ann Foster
hereby objects TO the the probate of the instrument al
legged be the will testament of Isaac Merritt
Singer deceased and specifies the following grounds of
objection thereto namely


FiTSt-That the said instrument was not legally duly
and properly executed.


Seco,d-That the said Isaac Merritt Singer not of
sound mind at the time Of IT'S execution.


ThirI-rhat the SAID Isaac Merritt Singer under
restraint and subject to undue influence at the time Of
its execution.


FourI-That Isabella Eugenia Singer, who, in said


instrument is named and designated the wife Of tho
said Isaac Merritt Singer, is not and never was his


FVM-That Adam Mortimer Singer winnaretta
Eugenia Singer Washington Merritt Grant Singer
Paris Eugene Singer, Isabella Blanche Singer and
Franklin Morse Singer, named in said instrument
the children of the said Isaac Merritt Singer by his
wife Isabella Eugena Singer not tho legitimate
children Of the said Isaac Merritt Singer


Sir-That this contestant the lawful wife of the
said Isaac Merritt Singer ut the of his decease
and is his lawful widow; and as such is seized of
dover right in the real estate and entitled her
third in the personal estate of the said Isaac Merritt
Singer.


fraud of the rights Of this contestant and by of
fraud, restraint and undue influence and in ignorance
and under misrepresentation OF tho legal status OF the
aforesaid legatees.


About eleven O'Clock Surrogate Coffin, in order TO
facilitate the proceedings by ascertanng who the
era counsel present appeared for inquired Of Mr Van
Pet in whose behalf he was present No sooner had
that gentleman announced that he counsel for Mrs
Mary Ann Singer the rightful widow of the testator
than Mr. Carter and objected any consideration
of her claim by the Surrogate. He objected 10 the in
Producing of her name at all in the case be said sho
had no standing in Court.


To this counsel for tho contestant replied stating
that it was worth while that early stage Of the
proceedings to argue tho question; that when the
proper tme arrived the status of his client Court
would be made plain enough.


Here counsel for tho executor intimated the pro-
prety Of appointing guardian, pendene lite for the
infant legatees under the provisions of the will that
step being preliminary to further proceedings Surro-
gate Coffin acquiescG in the suggestion and said that
it was usual for convenience sake to appoint the Clerk
such guardian There being>po objection raised by the
counsel present William NJ skinner, Clerk OF the Sur
rogate's Court, appointed


Counsel for the executor resumed his argument
against the admission of the contestants claim 70 any
portion Of the estate He denied that she was the
widow Of the testaor that she had any right 10 In
tervene Any outsider, he said might come in aQd
present similar claim She must he said, first esab
lsh her right claimant before her claim could be
considered Where parties intervene under such cir
ii Is customary to first make them establish
the position which they assume.


Mr. Van Pelt expressed surprise that the validity of
the claim of his client should bo peTsisently chal
lenged that early stage Of the case and deprecated
the idea Of making the legality of her claim ragmen
tary part of the whole proceedings The
was to admit the parties and let the question of their
status form part of the when the proper
time arrived for determining IT, Because the
testator did not in his will recognize her his
wito reason why she, who was
entitled TO 1000 900 or more out OF the
deprived OF a hearing IL the Court should decide in
the outset that his client has legal status in the
case 600 $4 600 600 would be thrown into the
hands Of alien who has legal right to a dollar OF
the estate He should consider the of his client
inurously affected, If on appeal, IL went up to a
higher court in a fragmentary form


ExJudge Porter Followed in a somewhat extended
argument urging that the contestant had right to
intervene and that she should not be allowed TO plunge
them into unnecessary litigation He asked If there
were any why the marriage alleged should not
be at once proved If she TO be permitted 70
exercise the privilege Of ascertaining whether such
in establishing tho claim of the contestant he said
nothing; he wanted tho evidence and the opportunity
OF cross examining tho witnesses.


The Surrogate stated that he at present disposed
to 20 into the question Of the status Of the Contestant
a gennFnte Ind distinct Question He was not pre-