forty centuries of ink- 第41部分

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　pocket　and　had　given

it　to　her　counsel　just　as　it　came　into　her　hands。



Its　condition　showed　it　to　be　considerably　pocket…

worn。　The　obliterations　referred　to　represented　huge

blots　of　black　ink　covering　a　lot　of　scratches　and

making　it　impossible　to　decipher　the　under　writing。

Defendant's　Counsel　immediately　requested　that　the

document　be　turned　over　to　an　expert；　to　see　what

could　be　done　with　it。　The　judge　granted　the　motion

and　adjourned　the　case　for　several　days　to　await

results。



Counsel　on　both　sides　joined　in　the　selection　of

myself。　Three　days　were　occupied　in　its　decipherment。

The　will　occupied　two　sides　of　a　full　sheet　of

legal　cap。　The　original　ink　which　was　employed　in

the　writing　of　the　will　was　of　pale　gray　color。　The

first　obliterations　were　a　series　of　pen　and　ink

scratches　and　marks　which　destroyed　the　writing。

Not　satisfied　with　them　the　operator　had　with　a　saturated

piece　of　blotting　paper；　brushed　over　the

scratches　and　as　that　ink　was　of　good　quality　every

mark　of　writing　had　disappeared　in　the　jumble　and

blots。　It　so　happened　that　three　inks　had　been　employed。

The　original　ink；　the　ink　used　for　scratching

and　the　one　employed　to　do　the　blotting。　The　three

inks　were　happily　mixtures　containing　different　constituents；

and　so　by　utilizing　the　reagent　of　one　which

did　not　affect　the　other；　gradually　the　encrusted　upper

inks　were　removed　and　later　the　original　writing　appeared

sufficiently　plain　not　only　to　be　read　but　to

identify　it。　Photographs　made　before　and　after　the

chemical　experiments；　permitted　court　and　counsel　to

make　their　own　comparisons　during　the　giving　of　the

testimony　about　it。



It　permitted　also　the　finding　of　the　two　witnesses　who

lived　outside　of　the　city　and　to　learn　many　details

from　them　as　to　Mr。　Dimon's　conduct　in　the　matter。



The　restored　will　showed　that　Mrs。　Keery　at　its

date　（1891）　was　still　in　his　mind；　and　its　destruction

by　himselfthat　he　had　changed　his　mind。



Justice　Ingraham　completes　his　opinion　in　deciding

the　case　as　follows：



〃In　this　case；　however；　the　long　time　that

elapsed　between　the　time　of　the　delivery　of　the

will　to　Mr。　Morgan　and　the　death　of　the　testator；

the　absence　of　my　satisfactory　proof　of　the　existence

of　the　will　from　the　time　it　was　delivered　to

Mr。　Morgan　to　the　time　of　the　testator's　death；

and　the　fact　that　the　testator　made　another　will；

making　substantially　the　same　disposition　of　the

property；　which　he　subsequently　destroyed；　all

tend　to　cast　a　doubt　upon　the　fact　that　the　will

was　in　existence　at　the　time　of　the　testator's　death；

and　there　is　positively　no　evidence　that　it　was　ever

fraudulently　destroyed。



〃I　do　not　think　the　court　is　justified　in　diverting

a　large　sum　of　money　from　those　legally　entitled

to　it；　by　allowing；　a　lost　will　to　be　proved；　except

upon　the　clearest　and　most　satisfactory　evidence

of　the　existence　of　the　will　at　the　time　of　the　testator's

death。　And　the　testimony　in　this　case　falls

short　of　what　I　consider　necessary　to　establish

such　a　will。



〃There　should　be；　therefore；　judgment　for　the　defendants

with　costs。〃

　*　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*



A　case　of　considerable　interest　was　tried　before

Hon。　Clifford　D。　Gregory　in　the　month　of　March；　1899；

in　the　city　of　Albany；　New　York。　It　was　entitled

the　〃People　of　the　State　of　New　York　against　Margaret

E。　Cody；〃　as　charged　with　the　crime　of　blackmail；

in　the　sending　of　a　letter　to　Mr。　George　J。

Gould；　in　which　she　threatened　to　divulge　certain

information　which　she　claimed　to　possess　about　his

dead　father；　Jay　Gould。　The　character　of　this

information　was　such　that　if　true　it　meant　that　Jay

Gould　and　his　wife　had　lived　in　bigamous　relations

during　a　great　number　of　years　preceding　their　death

and　hence　also　affected　the　legitimacy　of　the　entire

Gould　family。　Mrs。　Cody　asserted　that　Jay　Gould

was　married　to　a　Mrs。　Angel　some　time　i