Chapter IV: Curious Wills (1)

“Most men are within a finger’s breadth of being mad; for if a man
walk with his middle finger pointing out, folk will think him mad,
but not so if it be his forefinger.”

* * * * *

“Where be your Gibes now? Your Gambols? Your songs? Your flashes of
merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?”

1

HUSBANDS, WIVES, AND CHILDREN

“Men should be careful lest they cause women to weep, for God
counts their tears.”

An editorial on “Testamentary Habits and Peculiar Wills,” appeared in the _Western Reserve Law Journal_ some time ago. Its excellence merits a reproduction in part:

“The laws of human nature underlie all systems of jurisprudence. Positive law is evolved out of long periods of human phenomena. The general systems of law are the composite products of innumerable generations of men. These accepted codes are supposed to embody the survivals of an immemorial struggle between right and wrong, and the highest sentiments of justice, and the clearest perfection of reason of all ages. But it is a remarkable fact that one-half of all the property in the world, in the succession of generations, is transmitted and controlled by the supreme purpose and disposition of individual men and women. The tenure of property is not always held, nor is it transmitted, according to legislative enactments or judicial law. Under the testamentary privilege secured by law the unenlightened mind often becomes the legislature which frames and promulgates the rule of descent which fixes the destiny of millions of property. The perfect freedom and untrammelled modes of expression, secured in the will-making privilege, results in the manifestation of the most normal and spontaneous spirit of the individual.

“For genuine and authentic repositories of human idiosyncrasies and whimsical peculiarities, as well as lofty sentiments and noble thoughts on high themes, there is nothing comparable with the last will and testament. There are several reasons for the existence of this fact.

“1st. The will is usually the product of grave thought and deliberation. It is the matured disposition of the individual testator, framed and published in the exercise of one of the highest and best appreciated rights granted by society to the individual. The will is also the outgrowth of the individual’s sense of duty involved in sacred domestic and family obligations and relationships.

“2d. The right to make the will confers the privilege coveted by both men and women to speak into the universal ear ‘the last word.’ The sum of man’s moral sense, and his exact ethical tone, is not infrequently concentrated in his last will.

“3d. In the ages of the world, when the agitation of religious beliefs was most prevalent, men were prone to give a summary of their opinions upon religion in their wills. The rites and ceremonies of sepulchre are often prescribed; the belief in immortality is often expressed in these sacred documents. The vanities and foibles, the whims and caprices, the eccentricities and prejudices, all leave their exact mould and expression in this important instrument. The cynic adopts this means of giving a parting blow to the unfriendly and unsympathizing world. It is said that the mould and fashion of the human form was so preserved in ancient Egypt by the embalmer’s art that the peculiar physiognomy of the Pharaohs is discovered after three thousand years of burial. This art of preservation has been lost. But in the numerous receptacles for recorded wills in Europe and America are found the mummified intellectual and spiritual remains of past generations as clearly and positively embalmed as are the bodies of the Pharaohs.

“It is interesting to note the influence of long-established customs upon the social habits of people. The present habitat of the will-making people is continental Europe. This fact is susceptible of easy explanation. The jurisprudence of the continent is founded on Roman law. Sir Henry Sumner Maine has well said: ‘To the Romans belong preëminently the credit of inventing the will, the institution which, next to the contract, has exercised the greatest influence in transforming human society.... To the Roman no evil seems to have been a heavier visitation than the forfeiture of testamentary privilege; no curse seems to have been bitterer than that imprecated upon an enemy ‘that he might die without a will.’”

* * * * *

“The odd freaks, vagaries and vanities of men thus find permanent lodgment in testamentary remains. While these features of the will at first appear to defy classification, yet by careful examination, extending over long periods, the manifestation of unvarying habits of mind, and the existence of constant and controlling instincts and motives, are readily discovered.

“These natures of ours, when freely dealing with the subject of property, and exhibiting solemn sentiments upon duty and destiny, unconsciously yield to fundamental laws of uniform operation; and these testamentary memorials may be made to furnish much curious instruction upon psychological and sociological subjects.”

DUTY OF HUSBANDS TO MAKE WILLS

The following article from the pen of Harriette M. Johnston-Wood, of the New York bar, appeared in _Harper’s Weekly_ in the issue of September 24, 1910; there is much in it which should appeal to the sense of justice and manhood of the husbands, brothers and sons of our country. The barbaric treatment of women with reference to property rights should no longer find a place in the laws of a country which boasts of its enlightenment and freedom as does the United States. It is gratifying to record that a more liberal policy is fast being adopted by the law-making bodies of our States.

Our author says:

“It has been our custom for a number of years to pass our summer vacation on the banks of Lake Seneca, where one of us was born. Here our paternal grandparents came when the country was yet a wilderness, and here they lived and died. Their wedding journey from Rensselaerwick was made in a covered wagon, in which they brought their worldly possessions, some chairs, a table, a bed, a stove, some dishes and cooking utensils. A half-dozen sheep and a cow brought up the rear of this caravan. Here they cleared the ground and built a house. Grandmother dyed and carded and spun into yarn and wove into cloth the wool from the sheep, from which she knitted the socks and mittens and made the clothing. From the flax which grew wild thereabouts she made the household linen. No small tasks were these when eventually nine children came to demand care and protection. Once a year a perambulating shoemaker came through the country, and then this small army was shod, with boots and shoes in reserve sufficient to last until his return. By and by a frame house was built, a luxury in those days; property was accumulated.

“To whom did it belong?

“In justice and equity it belonged to both parents. Each had borne the burden; each should share in the reward. But the law said no. The wife’s services belong to the husband, and their joint earnings belong to him, only the husband must support the wife. The wife owned nothing. Truly a munificent compensation for fifty years of service such as this!

“Did grandfather support grandmother? Were grandmother’s services less valuable than grandfather’s? By what righteous authority did everything belong to grandfather?--he being allowed to give or will away everything, except the use of one-third of the real estate, which grandmother might have after his death, but for her lifetime only. It was barely possible that grandmother might have liked to give or will something to her children on her own account. When she had earned it, by years of toil as hard as his, why should she not have been allowed to gratify this altogether worthy ambition?

“Forty years ago a boy and a girl married. He had nothing. She had saved five hundred dollars teaching school. They bought a farm, paying her five hundred dollars down, and taking a mortgage for the balance. Title was taken in the husband’s name. They worked together for forty years. He died, leaving no will. There were no children. Under the law of the State the property went to his brothers and sisters, all old, all well-to-do. The personalty amounted to very little. The wife’s dower, the use of one-third during her life, amounts to less than $200 a year, and this is her sole support in her old age.

“In that section of the country women can get one dollar a day for at least half the year working in fruit, tying grape-vines, putting handles on baskets, picking berries, cherries, and currants, and packing grapes, peaches and plums. Household service is always at a premium, as no one there will go out to do that kind of work. They are the descendants of the old settlers and are proud. The married women work in the fruit in the daytime, and perform their household duties at night. This means baking and cooking and stewing, and washing and ironing and mending for the hired men as well as the family. Incidentally they raise children. No one person could be hired to do this work. They do it for love, but we believe there is no insurmountable obstacle in the way of getting both love and justice; we believe that love and injustice are irreconcilable,--and if we _must_ choose between them, my advice is to exact justice and take a chance on love.

“To wife’s services, 40 years at $3 per week (worth $5),
allowing for clothing, which she makes herself and which
seldom equals and rarely exceeds $30 a year, about $30,000

To $500 and interest, 40 years, about 6,000
-------
Total $36,000

“Would the whole estate have been more than this wife was entitled to?

“A bride was presented by her uncle with $2000, with which the thrifty bridegroom bought sheep. It proved a profitable investment, and in time they were well-to-do. At the expiration of fifty years of matrimony and mutual toil (which included the rearing of six children) the husband died. By his last will and testament he gave to his beloved wife two thousand dollars in cash, or her dower interest in his real estate. The wife took the cash. Her original two thousand dollars for fifty years then amounted to about $60,000.

“This shows that a wife may be considered to be a good investment.

* * * * *

“A clerk in a delicatessen store in a large city married a German governess. They started a similar store of their own and lived in the rear. The wife did the housework and the cooking and baking for the store, and between times waited on customers. They were frugal and prospered. After twenty years the husband died. The wife naturally thought she was entitled to the property, at least a portion of it. But the husband had made a will prior to his marriage, whereby he devised his property to his brothers and sisters.”

* * * * *

“The staple argument of the opponents of equal laws for men and women is that wives are privileged in that they can do with their own as they like, while the husbands cannot. But is the property the husband’s any more than the wife’s when they accumulate it jointly? Up to the marriageable age girls earn nothing; after marriage their services belong to their husbands. Where is the opportunity to accumulate property which shall be their very own in the eyes of the law, with which they may do as they like? What provision can they make for possible incapacity and certain old age if they live?”

WILL OF A CHINAMAN

There was filed in the Surrogate’s Office of Queens County, New York, on October 1, 1910, what the newspapers refer to as the queerest instrument ever recorded in New York City. The testator was John Ling, a Chinaman, of Woodbridge, New Jersey.

The original will was probated in Middlesex County, New Jersey, but as Ling was the owner of considerable real estate in Queens County, before settlement could be made an exemplified copy of the will had to be filed there.

It appears that John Ling, Jr., a son of the deceased, had taken an Irish bride, much against the will of his father. The Chinaman was enraged, and talked long and earnestly with his son upon the subject. But to no avail. The young man refused to leave his Irish bride. When the old man died, he left the following will:

“First, I leave and bequeath to John Ling, my son, the sum of $1. With the said sum of $1, or 100 cents, I wish that he would purchase a rope strong and long enough to support his Irish wife; the said sum of $1 to be paid six months after my decease by my wife, her heirs or executors.

“Secondly, I leave and bequeath to my wife, Mary Ling, all property, whether in America or England, that I may be possessed of, during her natural life; and at her death said property is to be equally divided between Samson and Mary Ling, son and daughter of John and Mary Ling; and should neither Samson nor Mary survive to come in possession of the said property now belonging to John and Mary Ling, the property is then to descend unto John Ling, the son of Joseph Ling, my nephew, now residing in Europe, with the exception of the $1 to be paid to my son, John Ling.”

TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A HUSBAND

According to the _New York Sun_, an attractive young German woman of Washington, D.C., walked into a newspaper office in that city on October 11, 1910, and requested the insertion of the following advertisement:

“‘Young woman, fairly wealthy, from foreign country, desires to meet at once some poor young man. Object, matrimony.’

“She gave her name as Eugenie Adams, but admitted that this was an assumed name. She said she was willing to give her prospective husband a bonus of $200. She explained that her uncle, who lived in Germany, had named her as the beneficiary in his will, provided she married in a week.

“‘You see it is this way,’ she explained with a German accent, ‘my old uncle is very eccentric. He lives in the Fatherland, where all my people are. He has named me the beneficiary of his will if I am married by a week from to-day. I am very poor. I want the money. I plan to get married in order to obtain it. I will pay any young man $200 to marry me.

“‘But I will be no trouble to him,’ she continued. ‘I will get a divorce from him at once and never see him again. I do not want to remain married. I only want to return to Germany at once with my marriage papers. Could a man make $200 in an easier way?’

“She declined to give the amount of the legacy she expected to obtain through her marriage.”

THE RESULT

The _St. Louis Times_ in a recent editorial comments on the “Two-hundred-dollar Husband,” as follows:

“We have been much interested in a story which has been telegraphed from Washington, and which relates the circumstances under which a presentable fraulein bought a husband, in order that she might inherit an estate--which was willed her on the condition that she marry within a given time.

“She appears to have wanted the estate badly, though the idea of having a husband did not appeal to her at all. Perhaps there was a ruddy faced Heine at home with whom she had danced in the old days, and who still held her heart in thrall. Be that as it may--as Laura Jean Libbey would say--she married her emergency husband in Washington only because she had to, in order to get the estate.

“She did not wish ever to see her husband again, and when a sailor appeared in response to her advertisement, she rather liked the looks of him--for the occasion at hand--but decided, wisely, that he would not do, because ‘he travelled around the world, and she might see him again.’ She finally decided in favor of one Harry Oliver Brown, who wore a flowing sandy mustache, and a celluloid collar, and carried a walking-stick. We should have thought the flowing sandy mustache would have been enough, though we have no objection to the celluloid collar and the walking-stick, if they be thought to possess a corroborative value.

“And so the two were married, and Mrs. Brown gave her hired husband $200 and bade him good-by and left, without even saying she would hurry back, and boarded a ship for the Fatherland, where the estate was--and, presumably, is.

“We have related this quaint fable because it seems to possess a valuable idea for those who contemplate matrimony, not because they consider themselves fitted for it in any way, but because they feel they ‘have to get married’--so much the slave to public opinion are many estimable young people.

“If the thing has to be done, we commend the method of Mrs. Harry Oliver Brown. A sandy mustache, a celluloid collar, and a walking-stick can always be had for a song--and there is not a very heavy percentage of sailors.”

KNEW HER DISPOSITION

It is recorded of an old English farmer, that, in giving instructions for his will, he directed a legacy of one hundred pounds be given to his widow. Being informed that some distinction was usually made in case the widow married again, he doubled the sum; and when told that this was quite contrary to custom, he said, with heartfelt sympathy for his possible successor, “Aye, but him as gets her’ll deserve it.”

CLOTHES ON A HICKORY LIMB

The will of Charles C. Dickinson, former president of the Carnegie Trust Company, who died a few months ago, contains a bequest of $4000 for the education of his son Charles, at Cornell, with the strange stipulation that the son shall forfeit this allowance if he goes “to or upon Cayuga Lake.”

The lake is used by the Cornell crews and by students for canoeing and sailing.

To a nephew he leaves $2000 for educational purposes, with the same restrictions regarding Cayuga Lake.

SARCASTIC WILL

A British sailor requested his executors to pay to his wife one shilling, wherewith to buy hazelnuts, as she had always preferred cracking nuts to mending his stockings.

A CONTRITE HUSBAND

J. Withipol of Walthamstow, Essex County, England, left his landed estates to his wife, “trusting, yea, I may say, as I think, assuring myself, that she will marry no man, for fear to meet with so evil a husband as I have been to her.”

AUNT LUNKY’S WILL

The author has sought with little success for wills which would portray the character of the negro race, although the aid of Mr. Booker T. Washington was enlisted in this behalf. One, however, is offered:

Aunt Lunky was a negro servant and resided in Jacksonville, Illinois. For several generations, she had lived with the same family and had been a party to all household duties and functions during that period: she made her will, and her savings, some two hundred and fifty dollars, she left to “little Billie.” “Little Billie” was the great-grandson of her employer, and the pet of the household: in order that there might be no mistake in identifying the legatee, a picture of the baby boy was securely attached to the testament.

WILL OF THE DUCHESSE DE PRASLIN

By her will made in 1784, this testatrix, strangely enough, disinherited her own children, being falsely persuaded that her husband had substituted for them others whom he had had by an actress. She made her legatees the grandchildren of the Prince de Soubise, whom she did not even know. Her will was contested, and set aside. It contained another singular bequest--that by which she left to her husband a model of the Cheval de Bronze (the equestrian statue of Henri IV. on the Pont Neuf).

MUST EVER PRAY

Not long ago an Italian nobleman left all his money, which amounted to about $50,000, to his wife, “to be disposed of according to her own ideas,” provided she entered a religious order and spent the rest of her life praying for the repose of his soul. If she refused the conditions, the money went to the order direct, and she got nothing.

The poor woman is now fighting the will in court, and there is said to be some prospect that the estate will be divided and one-half, or at least a life interest in the income, given to her. This, however, can be done only by compromise.

The reason for this strange condition is said to have been revenge. The wife had a lover, and the husband did not discover the fact until during his last sickness, when she neglected previous precautions and he learned of her flirtations. The husband was also afraid that she would marry her lover, and is said to have told his lawyer that he would fix things so that the scoundrel could not have the benefit of his money, even if he did enjoy the affections of his wife.

A COLD WORLD

Ellen H. Cooper, West Somerset Street, Philadelphia, died recently. Pathos and worldly wisdom are mingled in her will. She wrote the instrument with her own hand. It follows in part:

“All the money and furniture I have has been saved through my earnings and hard work, therefore, I wish my two sons, John W. Cooper and Bernard M. Cooper, to follow to the letter my wishes.

“My one real anxiety has been their future after my death. They cannot now realize what a lonely life theirs will be without home or parents, for I know, except one has money, there is no one to care what becomes of one. Therefore I have saved for one purpose, that if either, or both, live to be old and unable to work you may find a home and pay so much to be kept the rest of their lives. There will be enough left to clothe you. All I am possessed of I want put out at interest. I do not want one cent of it spent otherwise, excepting what it takes to pay my funeral expenses. Remember, dear boys, this is a cold world and I would long since have been glad to lay down my burden had it not been for my love for you.”

BEAUTIFUL SENTIMENTS TO WIVES

As an expression of controlling impulses and ideas, the will has ever been associated with the home and family life. Some of the purest and sweetest sentiments of the human heart are often contained in these legal muniments. They are often the permanent repositories of the loftiest feelings of conjugal and domestic affection. More than fifty per cent of the wills made bequeath the bulk of the estate, absolutely or for life, to the surviving spouse.

A beautiful expression of this holy sentiment of affection is found in the will of John Starkey, probated in 1861. This testator says: “The remainder of my wealth is vested in the affection of my dear wife, with whom I leave it, in the good hope of resuming it more pure, bright and precious, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where there are no railways or monetary panics or fluctuations of exchange, but steadfast, though progressive and unspeakable riches of glory and immortality.”

The following is another example of solicitude for a devoted wife. Sharon Turner, the eminent author of the “History of the Anglo-Saxons,” dying in his eightieth year, in 1847, left this testimonial to his wife, who had died before him: “It is my comfort to have remembered that I have passed with her nearly forty-nine years of unabated affection and connubial happiness, and yet she is still living, as I earnestly hope and believe, under her Saviour’s care, in a superior state of being.” He was anxious that her portrait, which he directed should be painted and bequeathed, should correctly represent her. He then adds: “None of the portraits of my beloved wife give any adequate representation of her beautiful face, nor of the sweet and intellectual and attractive appearance of her living features and general countenance and character.”

KINDNESS TO WIDOWS

Testators in the present day frequently and ungallantly leave property to their widows only so long as they shall remain unmarried. In looking through some of the wills of the time of Henry VII., we do not find such a condition attached. There are many instances to be found, however, of the husband’s affectionate care for the future comfort of his wife. To quote two or three: First, from the will of William Parker: “Also I make Master John Aggecombe, Alderman of Oxford, my overseer, to se my last will performed; and I geve to hym for his labour my best crymsyn gowne so that he be frendly to Alice my wife.” In the will of Robert Offe, of Boston, Lincolnshire, after appointing Master Thomas Robynson and Master John Robynson overseers, he goes on to say: “And I beseche you, maisters both, that ye be good frends unto my wyf, and that ye will help her.” William Holybrande, gentleman citizen and “tailler” of London, bequeaths to each of his executors, William Bodley and William Grove, for their labor, £5 sterling, and “to be goode and kynde to my wyfe.” He appoints as overseer, “Robert Joyns, my cousin, one of the gentleman ushers of the chambre of our Sovaigne Lorde the Kynge,” and bequeaths to him £5 sterling “for his labour, and that he may help my wyfe in all her troubill, if any shall happen to her here after.” He also gives and bequeaths “to Roger Delle, my servant, so that he be lovyng and gentill to my wyfe, and give a trewe accompte for such besynese as he hath reconyng of, £5 sterlinge.” These three wills were all proved in 1505.

WOULD NOT BE GOOD

In 1772, a gentleman of Surrey, England, died, and his will being opened was found to contain this peculiar clause, “Whereas, it was my misfortune to be made very uneasy by ----, my wife, for many years from our marriage, by her turbulent behavior, for she was not content to despise my admonitions, but she contrived every method to make me unhappy; she was so perverse in her nature that she would not be reclaimed, but seemed only to be born to be a plague to me; the strength of Samson, the knowledge of Homer, the prudence of Augustus, the cunning of Pyrrhus, the patience of Job, the subtlety of Hannibal and the watchfulness of Hermogenes could not have been sufficient to subdue her; for no skill or force in the world would make her good; and as we have lived separate and apart from each other for eight years, and, she having perverted her son to leave and totally abandon me, therefore, I give her a shilling.”

MUST REMAIN AT HOME

The last will and testament of Lawrence Engler was admitted to probate September 19, 1910, at Columbus, Ohio. It disposes of an estate valued at $10,000. He was killed in a recent wreck on the Hocking Valley Railroad near Toledo.

He provides in his will that his widow and their children be given the proceeds resulting from the rent of his property and that they all must remain at home. When they leave, they forfeit all rights to the income.

So long as they live together they are to share the income, but when one leaves he loses his interest.

This arrangement is to remain during the life of all, but no provision is made for the disposal of the remainder.

The will is peculiar in another way. The testator, after its execution, took the liberty of striking out some of the provisions without having the amendments witnessed. He failed to make a codicil, but does say that he did the scratching himself.

DANGER IN MUTUAL WILLS

The wills of Mrs. Mary Louise Woeltge and Professor Albert Woeltge were filed in the Probate Court at Stamford, Connecticut, on September 20, 1910, and they reveal a somewhat unusual situation. Professor Woeltge was the first to pass away at Walpole, New Hampshire, on September 12th. His wife died there a day later. Both left wills executed April 11, 1895. Professor Woeltge left all his estate to his wife and appointed her sole executrix. Mrs. Woeltge by her will left all her property to her husband.

Professor Woeltge inserted a clause by way of explanation to his nephew, Albert A. Woeltge, and his niece, Lillie Woeltge, both of New York, of this disposition of the estate. It was, in effect, that the money by which he acquired the property disposed of in the will came most, if not all of it, from his wife or her mother.

Professor Woeltge left two letters, one addressed to his wife and the other to his niece and nephew. The letter to his wife carried a direct expression of desire that on her death all the money he left her go to the children of his brother William, “that they might know that I loved them best after you.” The question arises as to who will get the property.

THE WORST OF WOMEN

Henry, Earl of Stafford, who followed the fortunes of his royal master James II., and attended him in his exile to France, married there the daughter of the Duc de Grammont, at the end of the seventeenth century. The marriage was a most unhappy one, and, after fourteen years’ endurance of the disgraceful conduct of his wife, he wrote as follows in his will:

“To the worst of women, Claude Charlotte de Grammont, unfortunately my wife, guilty as she is of all crimes, I leave five-and-forty brass halfpence, which will buy a pullet for her supper. A better gift than her father can make her; for I have known when, having not the money, neither had he the credit for such a purchase; he being the worst of men, and his wife the worst of women, in all debaucheries. Had I known their characters I had never married their daughter, and made myself unhappy.”

TOOK THE SON’S PART

Sir Robert Bevill, Knight, who held an official position at court under James I., was the representative of an old Hunts family, and held by entail the estates of Chesterton in that county. Dying in 1635, his will, which it appears was made within a very short time of his death, was proved, and in it occur the following clauses relative to his wife and his daughter’s husband, with whom he died at enmity. These vindictive behests, be it observed, are preceded by a very devout and godly preface, bequeathing his soul “into the hands of its Maker, stedfastly believing in, and by the merits of, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to obteyne free pardon and forgiveness of al my sinnes, and at the last day to have and receive a glorious resurrection.”

Immediately follows: “I give and bequeath to my son-in-law, Sir John Hewell, Baronet, tenn shillings and noe more, in respect he stroke and ceaselessly fought with mee.

“Item: I give unto my wyfe tenn shillings in respect she took her sonnes part against me, and did anymate and comfort him afterwards. These will not be forgotten.” Furthermore, the testator, in resentment against his said wife--“inasmuch as she hath not only deserted mee, but hath taken into her own possession all her own goods, and hath disposed of them at her own pleasure”--declares his determination “to make no ampler provision for her.”

He concludes this vindictive will by leaving all his large estates to his second son.

This will is not exactly of the class alluded to by Steele in one of his plays, where he makes one of the characters, a widow, remark, “There is no will of an husband so cheerfully obeyed as his last.”

ACCUSED OF EVERY CRIME

John Parker, a bookseller, living in Old Bond Street, served his wife in the following manner, leaving her no more than fifty pounds, and in the following words:

“To one Elizabeth Parker, whom through fondness I made my wife, without regard to family, fame, or fortune, and who in return has not spared most unjustly to accuse me of every crime regarding human nature, except highway robbery, I bequeath the sum of fifty pounds.”

BETWEEN THE LINES

A rich man, making his will, left legacies to all his servants except his steward, to whom he gave nothing, on the plea that, “having been in my service in that capacity twenty years I have too high an opinion of his shrewdness to suppose he has not sufficiently enriched _himself_.”

MENIAL SERVICE REQUIRED

A year or two ago, a Russian gentleman, living at Odessa, bequeathed four million roubles to his four nieces, but they were to receive the money only after having worked for a year as washerwomen, chambermaids or farm servants. These conditions were carried out, and while occupying such humble positions, it is gratifying to learn that they received over eight hundred and sixty offers of marriage.

NO MUSTACHES

The will of Mr. Henry Budd, which came into force in 1862, declared against the wearing of mustaches by his sons, in the following terms: “In case my son Edward shall wear mustaches, then the devise hereinbefore contained in favour of him, his appointees, heirs, and assigns of my said estate called Pepper Park, shall be void; and I devise the same estate to my son William, his appointees, heirs, and assigns. And in case my said son William shall wear mustaches, then the devise hereinbefore contained in favour of him, his appointees, heirs, and assigns of my said estate called Twickenham Park, shall be void; and I devise the said estate to my said son Edward, his appointees, heirs, and assigns.”

WILL OF WILLIAM PYM

The will of William Pym, of Woolavington, Somerset, gent., is worth citing for its originality. It bears date January 10, 1608.

After various charitable bequests, the last of which specifies the sum of twelvepence to the church at Wells, he proceeds:

“I give to Agnes, which I did a long time take for my wyfe--till shee denyd me to be her husband, all though wee were marryd with my friends’ consent, her father, mother, and uncle at it; and now she swareth she will neither love mee nor evyr bee perswaded to, by preechers, nor by any other, which hath happened within these few yeres. And Toby Andrewes, the beginner, which I did see with mine own eyes when hee did more than was fitting, and this by means of others their abettors. I have lived a miserable life this six or seven yeres, and now I leve the revenge to God--and tenn pounds to buy her a gret horse, for I could not this manny yeres plese her with one gret enough.”

Two years after writing this bitter record of his wrongs, William Pym, gent., gave up the ghost, and his last wishes were faithfully carried out by his two executors.

CONTRARY TO ROOSEVELT’S IDEA

The malevolence of some men is manifested in their deaths, as well as in their lives. A certain wealthy man left this provision in his will: “Should my daughter marry and be afflicted with children, the trustees are to pay out of said legacy, Ten Thousand Dollars on the birth of the first child, to the ---- Hospital; Twenty Thousand Dollars, on the second; Thirty Thousand Dollars, on the third; and an additional Ten Thousand Dollars on the birth of each fresh child, till the One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars is exhausted. Should any portion of this sum be left at the end of twenty years, the balance is to be paid to her to use as she thinks fit.” This item would, no doubt, interest our late President, Theodore Roosevelt.

WIFE’S DESERTION REWARDED

A certain Glasgow doctor died some ten years ago, and left his whole estate to his sisters. In his will appeared this unusual clause: “To my wife, as a recompense for deserting me and leaving me in peace, I expect the said sister, Elizabeth, to make her a gift of ten shillings sterling, to buy her a pocket handkerchief to weep after my decease.”

WOULD NOT WEAR THE CAP

A husband left his wife sixty thousand dollars, to be increased to one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, provided she wore a widow’s cap after his death. She accepted the larger amount, wore the cap for six months, and then put it off. A lawsuit followed, but the judge gave the widow a judgment and stated that the word “always” should have been inserted. Shortly after the rendition of the judgment, the widow entered into the state of matrimony.

STRANGE REQUIREMENT AS TO MARRIAGE

In 1805, Mr. Edward Hurst left a very large fortune to his only son on condition that the latter should seek out and marry a young lady, whom the father, according to his own statement, had, by acts for which he prayed forgiveness, reduced to the extremity of poverty; or failing her, her nearest unmarried female heir. The latter, by the irony of fate, turned out to be a spinster of fifty-five, who, professing herself willing to carry out her share of the imposed duty, was duly united to the young man, who had just reached his majority.

A HAPPY WIFE

Many wills have reference to the domestic felicity, or otherwise, experienced by those who executed them. As an example of the former, we may give the following passage from the testament of Lady Palmerston, an ancestress of the celebrated Premier. Referring to her husband, she says, “As I have long given you my heart and tenderest affections and fondest wishes have always been yours, so is everything else that I possess; and all that I can call mine being already yours, I have nothing to give but my heartiest thanks for the care and kindness you have at all times shown me, either in sickness or in health, for which God Almighty will, I hope, reward you in a better world.” Then, for “form’s sake,” follow several specific bequests.

MUST WALK BAREFOOTED

A wife who domineers over her husband sometimes discovers that she has made a serious mistake. Ten years ago the London (England) newspapers reported that a publican (housekeeper) took a curious revenge on a nagging wife, whose sharp tongue had given him many bad days while he lived. When his will was read, she learned that in order to receive any property she must walk barefooted to the market-place each time the anniversary of his death came around. Holding a candle in her hand, she was there to read a paper confessing her unseemly behavior to her husband while he lived, and stating that had her tongue been shorter, her husband’s days would probably have been longer. By refusing to comply with these terms she had to be satisfied with “twenty pounds a year to keep her off the parish.”

ANTICIPATING THE PAST

It was Mrs. Malaprop in Sheridan’s delightful comedy, “The Rivals,” who declined to “anticipate the past.”

Mr. John B. Luther, whose will is given below, certainly had the past in mind when the instrument was drawn; it seems clear that he desired to “anticipate the past” in so far as a provision for forgotten widows and children was concerned. The testator formerly lived in Fall River, Massachusetts, but his will was probated in San Francisco; he left an estate valued at more than $100,000.

“I do hereby declare that I am not married and that I have no children. I have noticed, however, the facility with which sworn testimony can be procured and produced in support of the claims of alleged widows and adopted children, and the frequent recurrence of such claims in recent years. I therefore make express provision in this my last will as follows: I give and bequeath to such person as shall be found, proved, and established to be my surviving wife or widow, whether the marriage be found to have taken place before or after the execution of this will, the sum of $5, and to each and every person who shall be found, proved, and established to be my child by birth, adoption, acknowledgment, or otherwise, and whether before or after the execution of this will, the sum of $5, and I declare that I do intentionally omit to make for any of the persons in this paragraph referred to any other or further provision.”

2

ANIMALS

“Kind hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood.”

LOWER ANIMALS HAVE SOULS

The _Peoples Pulpit_, a publication issued by the “Brooklyn Tabernacle,” in a recent issue under the title, “What is a Soul?” says:

“Thus we see why it is that the Scriptures speak of ‘souls’ in connection with the lower animals. They, as well as man, are sentient beings or creatures of intelligence, only of lower orders. They, as well as man, can see, hear, feel, taste and smell; and each can reason up to the standard of his own organism, though none can reason as abstrusely nor on as high a plane as man. This difference is not because man has a _different kind of life_ from that possessed by the lower animals; for all have similar vital forces, from the same fountain or source of life, the same Creator; all sustain life in the same manner, by the digestion of similar foods, producing blood, and muscles, and bones, etc., each according to his kind or nature; and each propagates his species similarly, bestowing the _life_, originally from God, upon his posterity. They differ in shape and in mental capacity.

“Nor can it be said that while man is a _soul_ (or intelligent being) beasts are without this soul-quality or intelligence, thought, feeling. On the contrary, both man and beast have soul-quality or intelligent, conscious being. Not only is this the statement of Scripture, but it is readily discernible as a fact, as soon as the real meaning of the word ‘soul’ is comprehended, as shown in the foregoing. To illustrate: Suppose the creation of a perfect dog; and suppose that creation had been particularly described, as was Adam’s, what difference of detail could be imagined? The body of a dog created would not be a dog until the breath of life would be caused to energize that body; then it would be a _living creature_ with sensibilities and powers all its own--a living soul of the lower order, called dog, as Adam, when he received life, became a _living creature_ with sensibilities and powers all his own--a living soul of the highest order of flesh beings, called man.”

A HEAVEN FOR BEASTS

Bishop Butler and Theodore Parker offered the suggestion that there is a future for beasts, and a poem has been dedicated “To my Pony in Heaven,” by Mr. Sewell of Exeter College.

GOLDFISH AND FLOWERS

A certain lady left seventy pounds a year for the maintenance of three goldfish, which were to be identified as follows: “one is bigger than the other two, and these latter are to be easily recognized, as one is fat and the other lean.” She also made provision for flowers to be placed upon the graves of the gold fish.

BEQUEST TO A FISH

We have heard of lucky dogs often enough--instances of lucky fish are more rare, yet we can tell of two carps who have been testamentarily benefited. One is, or rather was, too well known to the tourist who has seen Fontainebleau, to need more than a passing mention, as he only paid the debt of nature a few years ago, having occupied the royal pond, it is said, more than a century, probably in order to bear out the proverb which gives long lives to annuitants; the other was the mute but valued friend of the Count of Mirandola, who had been in his intimacy since 1805, dwelling in an elegant antique piscina, shaded by tropical plants, in an oriel of his _salon_ at Lucca, where he was still living as late as 1835, and may be there still. The count, dying in 1825, left him a handsome annuity, with special directions for his treatment.

BEQUEST TO A PARROT

A rich and eccentric widow, whose will was proved in London some years ago, left at her death a parrot, whom, “having been her faithful companion for 24 years,” she left in charge of an appointee, with an annuity of one hundred guineas, the existence and identity of the bird to be proved twice a year, and all payments to be withheld from the moment the feathered pensioner ceased to be produced.

POLLY WANTS A CONTEST

In July last, at Washington, D.C., a will contest was commenced, which involves the life or death of a parrot.

It appears Mrs. Ottilie Stock left a will, by the terms of which her parrot was doomed to Oslerization by the process of chloroform. Her daughter, Elizabeth Stock, questioned the validity of the will. It seems that Elizabeth was left one dollar in money, two kitchen chairs, two pails and one broom; hence, the will contest.

Mrs. Stock, the testatrix, was the mother of one of the men who went to his death on the ill-fated battleship _Maine_, in the harbor of Havana.

What behavior induced the death sentence on Polly, is not known.

WILL OF MRS. ELIZABETH HUNTER

This lady, a resident of London, having for many years enjoyed the society of a pet parrot, and being anxious as to the fate of her favorite after her death, bequeathed an annuity of £200, to be paid quarterly, so long as the parrot should live and its identity be satisfactorily proved. This annuity of £50 quarterly was left in the first instance to Mrs. Mary Dyer, of Park Street, Westminster, with a proviso that should that trustee die before the parrot, the sum should continue to be paid to some “respectable female who should _not_ be a servant.” One would think the testatrix must have had in her mind the story of Gay’s cat--“Nor cruel Tom nor Susan heard!” Moreover, it was to dwell in a cage that was to cost not less than £20, and which was to be “high, long, large and roomy”; the bird also was “not to be taken out of England.” This will was probated in 1813.

A CAGED ANNUITANT

An elderly spinster, by name Caroline Hunter, wishing to provide for a favorite parrot, bequeathed the bird with a legacy of one thousand pounds to a widow, a friend of hers, giving her power to transfer both the pet and the money to any third person, provided it were to one of the female sex, who would undertake not to leave England. There was a special bequest of twenty guineas to provide a very high and handsome cage, into which the parrot was to be removed, and the executors were charged, in the event of the charge and bequest being refused by the widow, to see that the parrot was committed to the care of some trustworthy, respectable person. The will concludes: “I will and desire that whoever attempts to dispute this my last will and testament, or by any means tries to frustrate these my intentions, shall forfeit whatever I have left him, her, or them. And if any one to whom I have left legacies attempt to bring any bill or charge against me, it is my will and desire they shall forfeit whatever legacy I may have left them. I owe nothing to any one--many owe me gratitude and money, but none have paid me either.”

HORSES TO BE SHOT

Frederick Christian Winslow was born in 1752; he was Councillor of State, professor of surgery, and knight of the order of Danebrog. His works on surgery have been translated into almost all the languages of Europe. He was grand-nephew of the celebrated anatomist, James Benignus Winslow. He died at Copenhagen, June 24, 1811.

His will disposes of property amounting to 37,000 crowns, but contains only one clause which can be considered singular, viz.: that which orders that his carriage-horses should be shot, lest after his death they come to be ill-treated by any person who might buy them.

WILL IN FAVOR OF A HORSE

Among the archives of Toulouse exists the registry of a singular will, made by a countryman of the immediate environs in 1781. This peasant, who was the owner of a considerable sum of money, besides his house and the land surrounding it, had no children, but had attached himself to a horse he always rode, though it does not seem to have been particularly comely in appearance. His affection for this animal was very constant; for, finding himself seriously ill, and having decided on making his will, he disposed of all his property in favor of the four-footed favorite in these terms: “I declare that I appoint my russet cob my universal heir, and I desire that he may belong to my nephew George.”

As may be supposed, the will was contested; but, strange to say, it was ultimately confirmed. An experienced jurisconsult, by name Claude Serres, professor of “droit civil” at Montpellier, has cited the case, and gives the reason for the decision arrived at, viz.: “That the will being pronounced valid, the succession of the testator was adjudicated to the nephew whom he had designated as proprietor of the horse, because it was ruled that the simplicity of the rustic should secure to him the execution of his last will, and that, having named his nephew as legatee of the horse, he intended he should have it endowed with the bequests he had bestowed upon it.”

HORSES AS LEGATEES

A curious will contest was instituted in January, 1911, in the Hungarian courts. This contest turns upon the legality of the will of an eccentric nobleman, Emile von Bizony, brother of a well-known deputy, who left all his real and personal property, amounting to about $200,000, to be used in behalf of his twelve draught horses.

As executor of his will, he named the Society for the Protection of Animals at Budapest, stipulating that the interest on his estate should be devoted to the care of his twelve draught horses, and that upon the death of one of them another aged horse was to be taken in and cared for, so that the number of twelve might always be maintained.

Herr von Bizony was sixty-five years of age, a confirmed misogynist, and at odds with all his relatives, who were naturally amazed at the contents of the will. His brother, the Deputy, Herr Alusins von Bizony, disputed the will. Negotiations were made with the above-mentioned society, and $20,000 was offered it, but refused, the society bringing an action against the Bizony family for the retention of the property.

TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A HORSE

An Irishman, James Gilwee, died in 1907 in Carondelet, a subdivision of the city of Saint Louis: by his will, filed in the Probate Court of the city of Saint Louis, he left two thousand dollars in trust, the revenue from which was to be used in the support and comfort of a favorite horse, “Tony”: the children of the deceased carefully respected the wishes of their father, and the horse was shipped to Bloomington, Illinois, where corn is plentiful and meadow grass is blue, and the horse received every attention until his death, which occurred quite recently. The two thousand dollars was thereupon divided between the heirs.

DOMESTIC PETS

Mrs. Elizabeth Balls, late of Park Lodge, Streatham, England, whose will was proved on the 5th of November, 1875, bequeathed to the Cancer Hospital, £2,000 Consols; to the Institution for the Deaf and Dumb, Old Kent Road, £1000 Consols; to the Blind Schools, Southwark, a like sum; to the Idiots’ Asylum, Earlswood, £500 Consols; and to Guy’s and St. Thomas’s hospitals, the like sum each. She directed that her late husband’s cob mare and greyhound should not be sold, but that the former should be kept in a comfortable, warm, loose box, as she had been kept since her late master’s death; that she should not be put to work either in or out of harness, and that her back should not be crossed by any member of her late husband’s family, but that she should be ridden by a person of light weight, not above four days a week, and not more than one hour each day, at a walking pace. For the support of this mare Mrs. Balls left £65 per annum, and for the keep and care of the greyhound £5 per annum.

BANK STOCK FOR A DOG

The late Mrs. T. P. Roe, of Canada, bequeathed to her little dog, Frolic, the interest on four shares of Montreal Bank stock for use during his lifetime, and at his death the same was to be sold and given to the Church of St. John the Evangelist.

DOG PAINTED BY LANDSEER

For his faithful companion Pincher, Lord Eldon in 1838 made a testamentary provision, bequeathing him to Lady Frances Bankes, with an annuity of eight pounds during the term of his natural life, for his maintenance.