按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
not being satisfactory to those who had been receiving
them from her； another contest was begun。 This
caused a renewal of Adams's activity。 In 1890 he
wrote to Messrs。 Black & King； a firm of lawyers who
represented the contestants of Mary Agnes Gordon's
will。 Adams's letter to the law firm contained this
expression：
〃If one of you will come over here on Sunday
morning； bringing no brass band； fife or drums； I
will tell you something worth knowing。〃
Mr。 King visited Adams； who was then living at
Orange； N。 J。； and was told by him that Mr。 Gordon
had executed a will in 1868 which he （Adams） had
drawn at Gordon's instance； and that he had retained
a corrected draft from which the will itself had been
copied。 He also told King that the original will after
its execution had been left with his father； and that
it must be at his father's homestead near Rahway；
where he would try to find it。 A few days later he
wrote to Black & King that the will had been found；
and the next day went with the lawyers to Rahway
and identified the package found by his brother Edward
Adams； who occupied the Rahway farm； as that
which contained the will。 The package； unopened；
was taken to a safe deposit company and the original
draft was deposited with the secretary of state。 The
alleged will； which Chancellor McGill pronounced a
forgery when finally opened in the preliminary probate
proceedings； was found to be a very long and
complicated document； written on blue paper in black
ink。 The draft； which was on white paper； was also
written in the main in black ink； but a copious quantity
of red ink had been used in interlineations。 The
significant paragraph of the new will was a direction
to his heirs to purchase； if the testator had not succeeded
in doing so before his death； the Henry Adams
farm for 32；000。 Minute directions were given to insure
the purchase； but no lower price than 32；000
was mentioned。 Commenting upon this Chancellor
McGill's remarks：
〃It is also to be here noted that the Adams farm
is now scarcely worth one…third the price for which
it is directed to be purchased。〃
Continuing the court says：
〃The only living person who professes to have
had knowledge of this disputed paper prior to
November； 1890； is Henry C。 Adams。 He most
clearly and positively testified that he drew the
disputed paper at the instance of Mr。 Gordon。 He
produced a draft from which he said it was
copied。 。 。 。 I have already stated that Mr。 Adams
testified most positively when the draft of the disputed
paper was offered in evidence that it was the
identical document from which the will of 1868 had
been copied； and it is to be remembered that the
interlineations in that draft are almost all made
with red ink； and that Mr。 Adams testified that
those interlineations existed when the will was
copied from the draft。 With a view to testing the
truth of this testimony the contestants submitted
the draft to scientific experts； who pronounced the
red ink to be a product of eosine； a substance
invented by a German chemist named Caro in the
year 1874； and after that time imported to this
country。 At first it was sold for 125 a pound；
and was so expensive it could not be used commercially
in the manufacture of ink。 Afterwards the
price was so greatly reduced that it became generally
used in making red ink。 It is distinguished
by a peculiar bronze cast that is readily detected。
It was recognized in the red ink interlineations in
the draft of the disputed paper produced by Mr。
Adams by a number of scientific gentlemen； among
whom were some of the best known ink manufacturers
in the country； and Mr。 Carl Pickhardt； who
first imported eosine。 Upon further examination
the witness； Adams； said he thought the draft
produced to be the original until he saw the will on
blue paper； and that then he was perplexed； but
dismissed his doubt upon the suggestion of counsel；
but afterward he thought upon the subject 'in
the vigils of the night；' but by an unfortunate
coincidence did not reach substantial doubt enough
to correct his previous testimony until after the
testimony concerning the character of the red ink
he had used in interlining had been produced。 。 。 。
It is impossible to study this remarkable case at
this point without grave doubts as to the truthfulness
of Mr。 Adams； and indeed as to the frankness
with which the case was produced in court in
behalf of the proponents。〃
As to Adams as a witness； the court finally says：
〃And as I read the confused answers of Mr。
Adams and note his apparent misapprehension of
questions that would tend to involve him； and note
the apparent failure of his theretofore wonderfully
clear and exact memory of the most trivial and unimportant
details； I am inclined to reject the whole
story as a fabrication that has been punctured and
fallen to pieces。 。 。 。 I find it to be impossible to
rely upon the testimony of Henry C。 Adams。 Excluding
it the will is not proved。 。 。 。
〃I will deny probate； revoking that which I
have heretofore granted in common form。〃
* * * * * * *
In the attempt made to prove the alleged last will
and testament of Stephen C。 Dimon； deceased； chemistry
was the all…determining factor in the most important
branch of the case。 The peculiar features of
this remarkable and unique case are best described
by presenting them with a brief history of the entire
matter。
In 1884 Stephen C。 Dimon of the city of New
York made and executed a will； choosing as legatee
and executrix a Mrs。 Martha Keery。 The will he
intrusted to the custody of his counsel。 It appeared。
that some time during the following year his attorney
transferred this will from its resting place in a desk
drawer to a new safe and recalled having seen its envelope
a year later； but said he never saw the will
thereafter。
In 1893 Mr。 Dimon died。 No will being produced；
his brother took； out letters of administration。 Whereupon
Mrs。 Martha Keery commenced a suit against
the brother and the next of kin he represented； in
an effort to obtain the dead man's estate。 She based
her claim solely on the LOST will； the contents of which
were recalled in the trial by Mr。 Dimon's former
counsel； who was also one of the witnesses to the lost
will。 During the course of the trial in the Supreme
Court； presided over by Justice George L。 Ingraham；
Mrs。 Keery's attorney produced a mutilated document
which from its reading indicated that it had once
been a will； though not the 〃lost〃 one。 But the
names of the legatee； executrix； testator； names of
witnesses and their addresses were completely obliterated。
The written portions still undisturbed showed
it to be in the handwriting of Stephen C。 Dimon。
Mrs。 Keery's story was that after the death of Mr。
Dimon in going over an old coat formerly worn by
him； she had found it in a side pock