OCR Text |
Show BRYAN LOSES HISAPPEAL Wot Entitled to Sum of $50,000 Left Him ; by Bcinctt v . HARTFORD. Conn.. March 10.-Th Su-" rrrm court of Connecticut has handed down i decision In the Phllo 8. Bennett will case. In which William J. Bryan has figured as a possibls beneficiary to the extent ex-tent of ISO.00O. as provided In a "sealed letter" left by Mr. Bennett and finds no error. The decision upholds the Superior Supe-rior court, which rendered judgment to the effect that the clause in Mr. Bennett's will containing the paragraph In regard to the 150.000 to be left to Mr. Bryan is Inoperative, and that the said fund is a part of the residuary estate. Mr. Bryan appealed from this decision and the result' re-sult' is as previously stated. The Supreme court having held that, the "seated letter" was no -part- of the will, the only question to decide on was Its contents as a testamentary document. Clause U of the wiU leaves laO.OOO.to Mrs. Fennett in -trust with no purpose, while the sealed letter says that the money is left to William J. Bryan. The Supreme court holds that the Superior court is light in deciding that the clause la inoperative. in-operative. In its decision the Supreme court today says in part: "No effect can b given this 'sealed letter' let-ter' as a part of the will even If evidence evi-dence was offered to prove that it was In existence and known to the testator at the time the will was executed. To tieat this letter as an operative declaration declara-tion of trust would be. in effect, to hold that testamentary disposition of property could be made by an Instrument not executed exe-cuted In conformity with the statutes regulating such transfers of property." The opinion goes Into the history of the will case in detail, reviewing It from the first contest over the admission of th sealed letter In New Haven before the Superior court. Counsel for Mr. Bryan, when asked last right if the case would be taken any higher, said that It would not be. |