Year: 1875

which TO probate Is the subject of contest be-
tween two rival widows of the deceased has been
finally submitted to Surrogate Hutchings for his de-
cison Yesterday counsel on both sides OF the case
submitted to the Surrogate lengthy printed arguments
on their respective Sides both Of which present many
points Of interest From the testimony in the case
brief synopsis OF which accompanies the argument of
Messrs Field and Deyo behalf OF the contestants, it
is claimed by them that, September 81 1928, Mr..
Brown was married to Mary Ann Pickering They lived
together and wife until 1853 period OF twenty
five years. when he discarded her for Hannah E. Picker
ing, the divorced wife Of his wife's brother and
with her he lived her acknowledged husband until
the time OF his death, in March, 1875 BY her born
TO him son. named John L. Brown, Jr During the
period Of his separation from his FIRST wife he gave her
house, sums of money, presents from time time,
and occasionally got her to release her dover parcels
of real estate. BY his will now in contest and made
nearly two months before his death, he gives all his
property to his second affinity, Hannah and her son,
his namesake The estate thus intended to be devised
by the deceased though large consists mainly Of large
claims upon contracts with the city of New York. ALI
most Immediately after the death of Mr. Brown,
Hannah, the alleged second wife, offered the will for
probate and proof by herself and son had it ad-
mitted, but such admission subsequently revoked
on the app ication OF Mary Ann, the first wife, and
three sisters of deceased who contest the
validity Of the will, the ground that the
tesator incompetent by reason of insanity
or mental imbecility and was moreover unduy in1u-
enced by his alleged second wife TO cut of his first.
The cause Of bis impaired mind was claimed to be fall
he had in 1871 which was succeeded by another
1872 by both of which he sustained injuries his head
On the effect his mind of these INJURIES the
question Of undue influence exercised him by the
egatee large number Of witnesses were examined on
both sides, the conflicting testimony of whom
the question which the Surrogate called upon
decide.


On behalf Of the contestants Messrs Field and Deyo
contend that the object OF the friends OF Hannah the
legatee, was to leave the impression the Surrogates
mind that Brown received any injury that if he
did he much stronger and wiser after
the Injury than before, and that at all times
up to his doath he was a Hercules In
body and a Solomon in mind. But the testimony,
they claim had shown that he had committed many
acts which could not be those OF man of sound mind
that he frequently condition 10 be unable to
transact business and that those who not induced
by motives OF senterest to shut their eyes to his i'm
becilty were unwilling TO do business with him. that
for the last eighteen months OF his life Hannah hardly
trusted him out Of her sight, that she went with him
everywhere, she and not he, conducting his business
and that whenever she present he hardly
than automaton for hor to move. The medical tes-
tmony has shown that the deceased was suffering from
soening OF the brain; that there possible
coyery from the disease; that the blows which
had injured his head, combined with pecu-
MARY troubles, had shattered his intellect, and
that he was not of sound and disposing mind
and memory The testimony of DR.. Pratt for the pro-
ponents had failed to shake the foregoing conclusions
of Drs. Cottman and Hammond. II contradcts itself
His entire direct testimony on the first day was spent


in endeavorng TO explain away their evidence on the
theory that the symptoms detailed by them might not


indicate sotenng but did indicate partial paralysis Of
the substance OF the bran while on the second day he
undoes his whole prior testimony owing he says to
the consultation Of authorities meantime and the
symptoms might have proceeded from temporary
argcment Of the cerebral arteries His second day un
labors of his first with diligence compared to
which Pcneope's mighty undoing of her web was but
sloh Why did they not contradict Drs Cottman and
Hammond to Browns halluclnations his threats and
her fears Of his doing injury project of putting him
in asylum, his insomnia and other symptoms by
Hannah They did bring one witness who sworc he
had no hallucnaons, and on the crosse s-examinaton,
han .pI lat he
they were something like pneumonia or diphtheria
Hannah might have done as well as this Counsels
gumont for the contestants concludes ollows:-The
amount of the property OF the deceased is undeter-
mined. Ho has already amply provided for his by
gifts of the Gottenburg properly and Of an interest in
the Mehrbach property and otherwise. Hannah has
obtained large amount of property and II does not
appear that she got from any other than from
Brown What left appears to consist OF claims against
the city. The mistress and her son have abb
him while he lived. Whatever remnant there
might be she sought to grasp by taking him to his
counsel's Office but few weeks before his death and
letting him make his VIII, about which she proessed to
have been so Indifferent that though she was with him
and knew that he signed IT. she did not inquire the
tents He had hardly been buried day before she had
the will admitted to probate upon false statement that
she was his wife, and without notice to any person in
teresed And now II is time that her rapacty should
have check Tho real wife and the legitimate
relatives should have at least the remnants that she
spared when Brown living and seeks to grasp when


on behalf Of the proponents of the will Hannah and
her SON. Messrs Sullivan Kobbe and Fowler submitted
their arguments in which they contended the evidence
showed that in 1855 Brown separated from his first wife
by agreement OF separation made through a
trustee actual separation having taken place
in lS4a They had children. In 1s49 the
deceased married and began to cohabit and dwell
IN public, and in view Of tho whole world, with the
present vile, Hannah, decent and respectable
woman, we'll received among her neghbors, and in the
station OF life with the deceased. For twenty
years the deceased lived with Hannah In the
same town with Mary Ann, the latter making no claim
or interference in this arrangement Mary Ann had
abandoned her marital and conjugal relations and lived
for twenty eight years apart and separate from the de-
ceased, he having provided for her a maintenance to
this end. Tho deceased and Hannah have lived
and wife uninterrupted and happy life, and what is
extraordinary and remarkable, the sister of the
ceased and all his family accepted Hannah the wife
of tho deceased, visited at his home, and the
ncphews and nieces OF the deceased unver-
sally addressed her their aunt by marriage
and assumed tho relationship Of cousin to the son Of
the deceased by Hannah, John L. Brown Jr Upon the
presentation for probate OF the will acontest was made
not so much by the Of kin of the deceased as bv


combination Tor the purposes OF userior profit II Is
due TO the aud his son. the proponent say
that if the contest had not been matter Of speculation
II would have existed and here this disagreeabe
and offensive, we'll as defensive topic Will
The relations between the deceased and Hannah Brown
singulary pure happy and contcnted. Their son
respect for them BOTH and with the same tender
parental relation existing between his father and
mother that exists in any other condition OF life The
deceased was proud OF his only son and child,
and often spoke of him tcndery, and con-
stantly expressed TO disinterested persons his
intention to leave his estate to him The
son. up the time Of the contest, had no idea Of Mrs
Mary AIMS existence In the whole OF the evidence
appears single word of reproach stain upon the
fair and exemplary character of the II may be
that in due those persons who, for their
paltry and mischevous ends have lit to speak
kindly OF this will regret ~ but this Is now too late.
The testimony shows clearly that the deceased was a
man who had very strong affections for his son, the
proponent and had declared at all times his intention
90 provide for him and had even mado similar instru-
the present will in favor Of this son. This dis
pcls concludes the alleged undue influence and du
ress. There many reasons why II was not only
expedcnt but emncnty ht and proper that this
ehA AslI IN Inn nf nGt
ol the deceased The first wife, Mary
Ann, had, lifetime BEFORE been provided
for and disposed or The sisters had no claim upon the
deceased; he had aided them sufficiently, and never
Intended 70 provide for them by his last will and tesa