Chapter IV · CURIOUS WILLS

“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, about6,000

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

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.

“His attachment to this animal,” says Lord Campbell, “was very affecting. He used to say while he caressed him: ‘Poor Pincher belonged to poor William Henry, and after I took the Sacrament with him when he was dying, he called me back as I was leaving the room and said: “Father, you will take care of poor Pincher.”

“‘The dog was brought home to me when all was over, and in a short time he was missed; he was immediately sought for, and it was found he had gone back and was lying on the bed beside his dead master.’ He had another story about this dog which was decoyed away by a dog-stealer, and recovered by the Ex-Chancellor compounding felony with the thief. On receiving a letter signed, ‘An Amateur Dog-fancier,’ a negotiation was opened which led to Lord Eldon sending a servant with a five-pound note to a house in Cow Cross Street, where Pincher was found. The man being dealt with ‘on honour,’ freely disclosed the secrets of his trade, and in answer to a gentle reproach, replied: ‘Why, what can we do? Now that Parliament has stopped our trade in procuring bodies for the surgeons, we are obliged to turn to this to get an honest livelihood.’

“Pincher is introduced into several portraits of his master, who said: ‘Poor fellow! he has a right to be painted with me, for when my man Smith took him the other day to a law bookseller’s, where there happened to be several lawyers, they all received him with great respect, and the master of the shop exclaimed: “How very like he is to old Eldon, particularly when he wore a wig!—but, indeed, many people say he is the handsomer chap of the two.’”

“After Lord Eldon’s death, Pincher was painted by that consummate judge of the canine race, Sir Edwin Landseer, who remarked of him: ‘He is a very picturesque old dog, with a wonderful look of cleverness in his face.’ He has represented him listening to the ticking of a watch given to the Chancellor by George III.”

A Dog’s Hospital

An old lady who died in Paris in December, 1876, left a singular legacy to the city of Marseilles, being 85,000 francs, for the purpose of founding within its precincts an hospital—“pour les chiens et les chevaux malheureux.” M. Mertin, a notary of Paris, it was who received the will of Madame Veuve Perren, née Enouf, and who communicated its dispositions to M. Maglione, mayor of Marseilles.

Chloroform and Water for Animals

There is on file in the city of Saint Louis, Missouri, the will of Phoebe Deliah Nye, which contains, among others, these items:

“Item: I direct my Executor, immediately upon taking charge of my estate, to end the life of my faithful dog, Lily, by the application of chloroform, it being my desire to spare her from ending her days without that care which she would receive if I were living.

“Item: I direct my Trustee to establish, erect and maintain in various parts of the City of Saint Louis, Drinking Fountains and Places where both man and beast may at all times, both day and night, have fresh water to drink; convenient of access to all and free from any expense to them.

“It is my will and I direct that each and every one of such drinking places shall be so arranged that dogs and cats may drink, and that they may be permitted to do so freely; such drinking places are to be selected where they will be most needed and be most useful and in as many different places as possible, and particularly in the more congested and more frequented portions of the city.

“Item: I authorize and empower my Trustee to expend one-half of the Corpus and all of the net revenue from my estate in the establishing, erecting, and maintaining of the drinking places.

“Item: I authorize and empower my Trustee to employ such persons as in its judgment may be necessary to maintain and look after these drinking places at an expense not to exceed one-fourth of the net income and revenue from the trust estate; and to carry out my intent, my Trustee is authorized to purchase or to lease sufficient ground, upon which to establish such drinking places, and to accept donations and gifts of property, real and personal, to be added to the trust fund to be used in the same way and for the same purposes.”

Chronometers and Dogs

Sir James South, the astronomer, by his will, which was proved in 1868, gave a pocket-chronometer each to the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Rosse, and Mr. A. J. Stephens, the condition in each case being that the chronometer should be carried in the pantaloon pocket of the wearer, according to the habit of the testator. Sir James South also left £30 a year to one of his female servants during the lifetime of a favorite terrier named “Tiger”; and this animal was produced in the Equity Court in 1872, when a question arose as to its existence. On behalf of the dog or its keeper, it was asked that a sum of £1000 Consols should be set apart to meet the annuity, but the Vice-Chancellor held that the rules of the court, which applied to human beings, did not extend to dogs, and said that the executor’s personal undertaking for the rest of the dog’s life would be sufficient.

A Lover of the Canine Race

In the Gazetta del Popolo of Turin, of September 2, 1874, is found the following:

“Last week was opened by Zanini, the notary public, the will of a certain L. C., who, after having made a considerable fortune by means of the journal, the Caroccio, disposed of it in the following manner:

“‘I leave to the municipality of Casale an annuity of 1500 lire from the public debt, to be employed in rescuing all the dogs that shall fall into the hands of the civic dog-seizer (accalappiatore).

“‘I leave to my dog Schmid a rent from the public funds of 500 lire annually, to revert after his death to the foundlings of the city.’”

Lucky Dogs

Many valuable bequests have been made to dogs, and other domestic pets. Dr. Christiano, of Venice, left sixty thousand florins for the maintenance of his three dogs, with a condition that, at their death, the sum should be added to the funds of the University of Vienna.

Sambo and Romp

A Mr. Thomas Edmett, an Englishman, died in October, 1871, having by a codicil to his will, made in 1861, bequeathed as follows: “I bequeath to my faithful servant Elizabeth Osborne, on condition that she take care of my favorite dog, an annuity of £50 for her life, to be paid to her quarterly.” The annuity was given to her for her separate use, with a restraint on anticipation. The testator had at the time of making his will a favorite dog named Romp, which died before him. He, however, subsequently had another favorite dog called Sambo, which was in his possession at the time of his death. Elizabeth Osborne had taken care of Sambo as well as Romp. She claimed to be entitled to the annuity of £50 discharged from the condition of taking care of the dog.

The Vice-Chancellor held that Elizabeth Osborne was entitled to the annuity of £50 for her life. He hoped she would take care of Sambo, but he should not make the annuity contingent on her doing so.

Dog Saved his Life

A singular will was that of Mr. Berkeley, an Englishman of fortune, who died on the 5th May, 1805, at Knightsbridge. By this instrument he left a pension of twenty-five pounds to four of his dogs, having a particular affection for animals. Some one having observed to him that a portion of the sums he spent on them would be better employed in relieving his fellow-men, he replied, “Men have attempted my life, whereas it was to a dog that I own that I am alive.”

And, indeed, it appeared that during a journey through France and Italy this gentleman, being attacked by brigands, had been protected and saved by his dog; the four animals he pensioned by his will were the descendants of this faithful and serviceable friend. His steward was charged to spend the whole amount on the dogs and to reserve nothing for himself; and the testator entered into the most minute particulars as to its expenditure. Feeling his end near, Mr. Berkeley desired that two arm chairs might be brought to his bedside, and his four dogs seated on them, received their last caresses, which he returned with the best of his failing strength, and died in their paws.

By an article in his will he ordered that the busts of his four dogs, descendants of the dog who saved his life, should be carved in stone and placed at the four corners of his tomb.

A Wealthy Cat

In 1892 a Paris lady left ten thousand francs to her cat. On its death, the money was to be spent on elementary schools. Recently, the death of the cat caused the money to divert to the district governing body for this purpose.

Cat, named in Will, Dead

In the will of Mrs. Sarah Titus Zabriskie, filed for probate at Newport early in September, 1910, provision was made for “Whiskers,” a cat that had been Mrs. Zabriskie’s pet for many years. It was provided that if Mrs. Zabriskie’s daughter, who was chief beneficiary, died before “Whiskers” passed away, the cat was to be put to death painlessly by Dr. Thomas G. Sherwood, a veterinarian, of No. 107 West Thirty-seventh Street, New York.

Dr. Sherwood was not called upon, however. The animal was chloroformed a month before the will was filed. It appears “Whiskers” suffered from an incurable disease, contracted in earlier and happier years, and predeceased his mistress.

Cat and Dog Money

In a certain county in England, there is what is known as “cat and dog” money given to the poor, but which, in the first instance, was left for the support of cats and dogs. Then, too, there are the cow and bull benefactions in several English parishes, which have been left to provide cattle whose milk would go to the poor.

A Cat Menu

A remarkable will was that of a famous harpist of the seventeenth century, by name Madame Dupuis. So eccentric indeed was it considered that it gave occasion to a cause célèbre, and has been mentioned by various contemporary writers—among others, by Moncriff, by Mercier St. Leger and by Bayle. This testatrix died in 1677, and, if a rambling style of writing be any test of insanity, this lady ought assuredly to have been placed in durance. The document abounds in violent expressions and unchastened invective; while the singular mode of applying the very large property she has at her disposal, the vindictive retributions she conjures, and the exclamations and apostrophes into which she bursts at intervals, culminate in the final clause, which we translate faithfully as follows:

“Item: I desire my sister, Marie Bluteau, and my niece, Madame Calonge, to look to my cats. If both should survive me, thirty sous a week must be laid out upon them, in order that they may live well.

“They are to be served daily, in a clean and proper manner, with two meals of meat-soup, the same as we eat ourselves, but it is to be given them separately in two soup-plates. The bread is not to be cut up into the soup, but must be broken into squares about the size of a nut, otherwise they will refuse to eat it. A ration of meat, finely minced, is to be added to it; the whole is then to be mildly seasoned, put into a clean pan, covered close, and carefully simmered before it is dished up. If only one cat should survive, half the sum mentioned will suffice.

“Nicole-Pigeon is to take charge of my two cats, and to be very careful of them. Madame Calonge is to visit them three times a week.”

A Cats’ Home

A Mr. Jonathan Jackson, of Columbus, Ohio, died some thirty years ago, leaving orders to his executors to erect a cats’ home, the plans and elevation of which he had drawn out with great care and thought. The building was to contain dormitories, a refectory, areas for conversation, grounds for exercise, and gently sloping roofs for climbing, with rat-holes for sport, an “auditorium” within which the inmates were to be assembled daily to listen to an accordion, which was to be played for an hour each day by an attendant, that instrument being the nearest approach to their natural voices. An infirmary, to which were to be attached a surgeon and three or four professed nurses, was to adjoin the establishment.

No mention seems to have been made of a chapel or a chaplain!

The testator gives as his reason for thus disposing of his property that “it is man’s duty as lord of animals to watch over and protect the lesser and feebler, even as God watches over and protects man.”

He does not, however, explain how it happens that on this principle he does not consider it his duty to protect rats from the “sporting” propensities of cats.

Lord Chesterfield’s Cat

Lord Chesterfield left a sum for the support of his favorite cat, so also did one Frederic Harper, who settled one hundred pounds, invested in three per cent annuities, on his “young black cat”; the interest to be paid to his housekeeper, Mrs. Hodges, as long as the cat should remain alive. It does not appear how he provided against the substitution of any supposititious black cat for his favorite, should she have died whether of neglect or otherwise.

A Premium on Pigmanship

A wealthy tradesman, M. Thomas Heviant, died at the village of Crône-sur-Marne in 1878. In his will he made a number of singular bequests, among which was the following, which is carried out at the annual fête of the village. He ordered that among the amusements should be instituted a race with pigs, the animals to be ridden either by men or boys. The sum of 2000 francs was set apart as the prize to the lucky rider of the winning pig. The prize was not to be handed over, however, except on the condition that the winner wore deep mourning for the deceased during two years after the competition. The municipality accepted the eccentric bequest, and these singular races have been held agreeably to the terms of the will.

3 CHARITY

“ ... Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”

A Perpetuity Involved

A certain gentleman of New York named Marshall had acquired a large fortune in the manufacture of cotton goods. The Lord had smiled upon him, and his wealth consequently loomed up in large proportions. He was justly proud of his material success, and, being childless and without kin on this side of the ocean, he resolved to perpetuate his name and commemorate that liberality towards charitable and religious objects, for which he had always been remarkable. His plan was to have his executors carry on his manufacturing business for the benefit of religious and charitable corporations. He left his manufacturing establishment to his executors in trust to carry on the same and divide the profits in certain proportions between the American Tract Society, the American Home Missionary Society and the American Bible Society, and the Marshall Infirmary, the latter being a hospital which he had founded. The court held, however, that there was a perpetuity involved, and directed that the estate be divided between the next of kin. The court held that the business of such religious societies was the printing of tracts and Bibles, and not the manufacture of cotton cloths. It took eight years and cost $50,000 to establish the legal meaning of the will, which was a very different meaning from that which the testator intended.

Wise Will of Peter Burns

For years to come some families of Clay County, Missouri, will have occasion to remember with gratitude the wise philanthropy of a sturdy pioneer, Peter B. Burns of Liberty, who died in July, 1910; the terms of his will have just been made public. On the death of the widow half the estate, which is valued at more than $40,000, is to go to Clay County to be administered by the County Court in loans, which are not to exceed $2000 to a single individual and to bear two per cent interest; are to be secured by a mortgage on the real estate; and are to be paid off at the rate of at least $100 a year. Thus ten families at a time will constantly be given a lift toward financial independence.

The plan is based on the sensible principle of helping men to help themselves. As the help is in the shape of a loan, to be repaid, it will pauperize no one. It will go to families of small means, and it will provide an incentive to people to save enough to take advantage of the assistance offered.

No Study before Breakfast

Countess Anna Maria Helena de Nouilles, a member of one of the historic families of France, has made a curious will which was proved in July, 1910.

She left her estate at Meads, Eastbourne, England, to found “St. Mary’s Orphanage,” laying down the following rules for the education of the girls:

“No competitive examinations, no study before breakfast, no study after 6 P.M., all lessons to be learned in the morning, no girl to work more than four and a half hours daily. No arithmetic, except the multiplication table for children under ten. No child with curvature of the spine to write more than five minutes a day, until thirteen. Each girl must be certified by two phrenologists as not deficient in conscientiousness and firmness. No child to be vaccinated.”

Weary of Reading the Will

Nearly a hundred years ago, the Reverend Dr. Van Bunschooten departed this life and entered upon his reward: by his last will and testament, he left a legacy of $20,000 to the Dutch Reformed Church of America; the gift was accepted by that body and very properly expended for church purposes.

The testator, doubtless, with a view to posthumous fame and remembrance, made the gift on the express condition that his will should be read at all the official sessions of the Church forever. The Church has ever since been reading this document at all its official meetings.

It appears that the testament is of considerable length and much dryness, and its reading has become an irksome task: the Church has recently appealed to the courts of New York to be released from the duty of further reading the will, and it is to be hoped that the proper tribunal will determine that sufficient fidelity and honor have been shown.

Will of Pinedo, the Portuguese Jew

This remarkable Israelite, well known in Amsterdam for his enormous wealth and liberal donations, died about the middle of the eighteenth century. His will, testifying to a noble and generous nature, and disposing in the most magnanimous and tolerant spirit of the very large fortune he had made, is to be found (in Schutt’s “Memorabilia Judaica,” lib. iv. cap. 18) as follows:

“I bequeath to the city of Amsterdam the sum of five ‘tons’ of gold.

“I lend to the said city for ten years, and without interest, the sum of a million and a half of florins.

“I give to every Christian church at Amsterdam and at the Hague the sum of 10,000 florins each, and to the church in the southern quarter of Amsterdam 20,000 florins.

“I give to each Christian orphanage in the two towns the sum of 10,000 crowns.

“I give to the poor of Amsterdam forty shiploads of peat.

“I give to the orphan who shall first quit the orphanage 1000 florins, and to the one who shall succeed him 600 florins.

“I give to the synagogue at Amsterdam two and a half ‘tons’ of gold.

“I give to the Portuguese orphanage 30,000 crowns.

“I lend to the Government at three per cent. interest, ten ‘tons’ of gold on condition that the interest shall be paid to the Jews domiciled at Jerusalem: the capital to belong to the Government in perpetuity.

“I give to the German synagogue 5000 florins.

“I give to my nephew Ovis thirty-one ‘tons’ of gold, with all my houses and appurtenances.

“I give to my widow ten ‘tons’ of gold.

“I give to my other relations in equal portions 10,000 crowns.

“I give to each of my neighbours who shall assist at my funeral 100 ducats.

“I give to every unmarried person of either sex who shall be present at my burial 100 florins, and to every Christian priest in Amsterdam and at the Hague 100 crowns, and to every sacristan 50 crowns.”

Charitable Light

John Wardall, of London, by will, dated 29th August, 1656, gave to the Grocers’ Company, a tenement called the White Bear, in Walbrook, to the intent that they should yearly, within thirty days after Michaelmas, pay to the churchwardens of St. Botolph, Billingsgate, £4 to provide a good and sufficient iron and glass lantern, with a candle, for the direction of passengers to go with more security to and from the waterside all night long; the same to be fixed at the northeast corner of the parish church of St. Botolph, from the Feast Day of St. Bartholomew to Lady-day; out of which sum £1 was to be paid to the sexton for taking care of the lantern.

Gratitude

Charles Jones, Esq., of Lincoln’s Inn, by will, dated 17th January, 1640, directed that an hospital should be built near Pullhelly for 12 poor men, and that his father first, his uncle next, and so their heirs, should fairly and justly manage and govern such hospital, which he had long resolved, and with the desire of his deceased wife, who was with his father, and their mother, his brother Griffith, his sister, his wife, himself, and other servants, mercifully preserved and brought to land in Pullhelly, from imminent and present danger of the seas by God’s unspeakable love and favor; and whereas likewise he in his younger years was miraculously, by God’s own hand, drawn and led from the house in Port thyn Llayn, Wales, that was instantly cast and thrown down by the moultringe of an hill near thereunto, and therein nine persons and Christians were killed by reason thereof; himself, a child of three or four years of age at the most, having newly entered the house, and in a moment returned, not thirty yards from the house, but it fell all to dust and rubbish; for these and many other of God’s great mercies and loving kindness unto him, he and his deceased wife had determined of this poor hospital; for the maintenance of which hospital to be erected, he devised forever certain lands, of £50 per annum, and ordained his brother, Robert Jones, his executor.

It appears by a Latin inscription in front of the almshouses, that the benevolent intentions of the founder were entirely frustrated during the troubles of the civil war, and that the present edifice was erected by his heir, William Price, Esq., of Rhiwlas, in the year 1760.

A Light for Night Travellers

John Cooke, of St. Michael, Crooked Lane, London, by will, dated 12th September, 1662, gave to the churchwardens and vestrymen of this parish £76, to be laid out to the most profit and advantage, for various uses, and, amongst them

To the parish clerk, on condition that he should weekly, on a Saturday, sweep and make clean the aisle of the church called Fishmongers’ Aisle, 6s. 8d.

For the maintenance of a lantern and candle, to be of eight in the pound at the least, to be kept and hanged out at the corner of St. Michael’s Lane, next Thames Street, from Michaelmas to Lady-day, between the hours of nine and ten o’clock at night, until the hours of four or five in the morning, for affording light to passengers going through Thames Street or St. Michael’s Lane, £1.

Beer for his Associates

In 1879 died at Berlin a singular character, a man of large property and a fervent follower of the sect of Gambrinus.

The Tageblatt states that he had made in his will some capricious dispositions as regarded his burial; so abnormal, indeed, as to call for the intervention of the police; one of his directions being that his friends were to take it in turns to roll after his hearse a barrel of beer, which they were afterwards to consume upon his grave.

He distributed his large fortune among divers charitable institutions; but to his will was appended a codicil which was not to be opened until a year after his death. This anniversary, adds the Tageblatt, occurred recently.

The codicil being now accessible reveals a decree creating a fund of ten thousand marks, the interest of which is to be expended in serving weekly a quarter of a tun of Bavarian beer to the frequenters of a brewery in the Prinzenstrasse, where the testator had been in the habit of spending his evenings regularly during many years—these persons being such as survived of his contemporaries. As soon as all shall be dead, the fund is to be transferred to the first foundling hospital that shall be founded in Berlin, the testator himself having been a foundling.

Travellers’ Rest

George Butler, of Coleshill, Warwickshire, by will, dated September 2, 1591, gave his house at the lower end of the town of Coleshill, called the almshouse, also a house and lands in Gilson, to the uses following, viz., that the rents thereof should be employed to keep the said almshouse in repair, and buy furniture when wanting; that the feoffees, or constables, with their consent, might lodge any poor travellers that should desire it in the said almshouse; that none should be suffered to lodge there more than one night, except great cause shown; that care be taken women and men lodge not near together; that some persons be permitted to dwell there rent free, to wash the house and furniture, and to take care of the poor lodgers; that the overplus of the rent be employed to some charitable use.

Poor Maimed Soldiers

Phillip Shelley, of London, by will, dated the 6th of September, 1603, gave certain lands in Ulkerthorpe, in the county of Derby, to the Company of Goldsmiths, in trust (amongst other matters), to pay £10 per annum forever towards the relief of poor maimed soldiers, which sum is paid generally to ten pensioners of Chelsea Hospital.

Tolerance

William Wilson, of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, England, by his will, dated 15th of April, 1726, gave the sum of £100 South Sea Stock to the Chamber of the Corporation of Tewkesbury, upon trust, to permit the high bailiff for the time being to receive the dividends thereon, and dispose of the same, at his discretion, to poor persons of Tewkesbury, especially to such as should be visited with sickness or other calamitous accidents, without any regard to differences of political and religious opinions, the bailiff to account to the chamber for the disposal of the same, and to retain 10s. for his trouble.

A Republican Will

In August, 1874, MM. Nicolet and Colmet-d’Ange were employed to plead before the première chambre against the will of Adolphe-Théodore-Ange, du Laurens de la Barre.

The number of this gentleman’s names is in itself an eccentricity; his will was another. We need not cite the whole of it, but the following was the concluding clause:

“In case I should leave no grand-nephews, I bequeath my property, after the death of Madame Duhem and Mdlle. Verdun, to the three cities of Guingamp, Morlaix, and Lannion, on condition that the revenues of the same shall be employed to give marriage portions annually, and alternately, in each such city, to five young girls of small means.

“I desire that they shall begin by Guingamp and follow with the others in regular order.

“I further request the republican members of the conseil-général of the Finisterre, to the number of five—to the absolute exclusion of Legitimists, Orleanists, Imperialists, and above all of Clericals and Communards—to find five young girls whose parents, and who also themselves, hold the same opinions as myself. If at the conseil-général there should not be found the required number of members, those there are must call upon the municipal counsellors of the above-named towns, and if they should refuse to accept, on all the municipal counsellors.

“The Breton people is dominated, enchained by old prejudices; it must be liberated from its bondage.

“I believe in an unknown God whom I invoke daily, but not in a God of human creation.

“(Signed) Adolphe-Théodore-Ange, du Laurens de la Barre.

“Guingamp, 5th October, 1872.”

A Provision for Twins

Mr. and Mrs. Henry C. Mills, of Marblehead, Massachusetts, are the first claimants under a bequest made in the will of Hon. James J. H. Gregory, which provides that the income of $1000 shall be divided each year among the parents of twins born in Marblehead. The Mills twins were born July 10, 1910, and are boys.

The will, which was probated about a month after Mr. Gregory’s death in February, 1910, reads as follows:

“Having had my sympathies often aroused by reason of the extra burden and care entailed on loving mothers, poor in the things of earth, who have brought twins into the world, as an expression of that sympathy I leave in trust to my beloved town $1000, with the provision that the interest be divided on January first between all twins born in Marblehead during the previous year. In case no twins are born during a given year the interest shall be added to the principal.”

Dropping Money on a Tombstone

On Good Friday, in the Churchyard of St. Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield, after divine service, one of the clergymen drops twenty-one sixpences on a tombstone, to be picked up by as many poor people, widows having the preference. The will providing for this is lost, and the distribution is now made out of the parish funds. The bequest is said to date several hundreds of years back.

Charity Sermons to commemorate National Mercies

Luke Jackson, citizen and girdler, of London, by will, dated 26th of January, 1630, reciting that he was seized in fee of certain tithes at or near Horsepool, in the county of Leicester, being about the value of £20 per annum, devised the same to certain persons on trust, yearly, to pay the clear rents and profits thereof in manner following; that is to say, two equal third parts as followeth: 40s. thereof yearly to be given for two sermons to be preached in St. Peter’s church, in the town of Nottingham, on 28th of July and 5th of November, acknowledging God’s mercy, and giving thanks for the deliverance of this land and people at two several times from the Invincible Armada (as it was termed) in 1588, and from the Gunpowder Plot in 1605: and the residue of the said two-thirds to be distributed amongst the poor people in the parish of St. Peter, at the discretion of his five feoffees; and the other third part of the clear profits of the said tithes as followeth, viz., 40s. for two sermons to be preached in the church of Thornton, near Horsepool, on the two above mentioned days; and the residue to be distributed amongst the poor people in the parish of Thornton, at the discretion of his feoffees.

Encouragement for Maid-servants

John Cogan, of Canterbury, England, by his will, bearing date 27th of July, 1657, recited that he had lately purchased lands and tenements in the parishes of St. Mildred and St. Mary Castle, Canterbury, and in Thanington in Kent, of the yearly value of £35, which he hoped in ten years would improve in yearly value by £10, and which he intended to dispose of for the encouragement of maid-servants, to continue in service for six or seven years together; he therefore willed and devised the sum of five pounds apiece to any such three maid-servants as should, without compulsion, dwell with any master or mistress, not being their own kindred, within the city of Canterbury, for six or seven years together, without shifting their service; and he directed that such master or mistress should give a certificate of such service, and that the wages had not exceeded fifty shillings a year, to the mayor, recorder and three or more of the aldermen of the said city for the time being; and he further directed that the overplus, after keeping the said tenements in good repair, should be employed by the said mayor, recorder and three of the said ancient aldermen for the time being, in clothing six fatherless maiden children, from the age of six to twelve years, each to have a petticoat and waistcoat of colored kersey, one pair of shoes, and one pair of stockings, on Christmas Day; and that they should go through the city of Canterbury from parish to parish, as the said overplus would extend.

Bull Baiting

George Staverton, of Wokingham, Berks, England, by will, dated May, 1661, gave out of his Staines house a yearly sum of £6 to buy a bull, which bull he gave to the poor of Wokingham town and parish, being baited, and the gift money, hide, and offal to be sold and bestowed upon the poor children in stockings of the Welsh, and shoes.

Until 1823 the baiting of the animal took place yearly on the 21st of December, in the market-place of Wokingham. In that year the Corporation determined upon discontinuing such a proceeding, which has since accordingly been omitted.

Must attend Church

The last will and testament of Thomas Spackman, of Cliffe Pypard, Wilts, England, is as follows:

“June 5th, 1675.—I do charge my lands with twenty-one shillings by the year, and to continue for ever; viz., one shilling to the minister of the parish, to mind him of his duty in catechizing the children; twenty shillings to the poor of the parish yearly, to be given them at the church, viz.—five shillings on St. Thomas’s Day, five shillings on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, five shillings on St. John the Baptist’s and five shillings on St. Matthew’s Day: my Will is, that twenty poor people do receive threepence a-piece, and that they be at the church at the beginning of prayers, or else to have no share; if the number be not twenty, then the remains to be given to those that are best deserving; and if they can, let them sing the 15th Psalm; now, if the minister be a good man, he will be careful to see this my Will performed, for the honour of the church, that at this day is almost destitute.”

The land charged with this payment is in the tithing of Broad Town, and the property of William Ruddle Brown, a farmer. The sum has been for many years distributed in bread.

Fancy for Color

Henry Greene, of Melbourne, Derbyshire, England, by will, dated 22d of December, 1679, gave to his sister, Catherine Greene, during her life, all his lands in Melbourne and Newton, and after her decease to others, in trust, upon condition that the said Catherine Greene should give four green waistcoats to four poor women every year, such four green waistcoats to be lined with green galloon lace, and to be delivered to the said poor women on or before the 21st of December yearly, that they might be worn on Christmas Day.

For Paupers

Valentine Goodman, of Hallaton, Leicestershire, England, by will, dated in 1684, bequeathed £800, to be laid out in land, and the profits thereof given to the “most indigent, poorest, aged, decrepid, miserablest paupers,” viz., six from Easton, four from Medbourn, four from Hallaton, and two from Blaston; and if any part of the money (was) employed for easing town levies, or not according to the intent of the testator, then he declared that the gift should cease, and the money be employed for the redemption of Turkish captives.

A Religious Task

Dr. Thomas White, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, England, Bishop of Peterborough, by his will, bearing date in 1690, gave to the poor of the parish of Newark £240, to be laid out in land, £10 of which rent he allotted to the poor yearly forever, and the surplusage, whatever it should be, to the rector, as a reward for his pains and fidelity in the distribution of the said £10 to the poor; and he directed that the distribution should be made yearly by the rector in the church porch, in the presence of the churchwardens or overseers, in the following manner, viz.: that it should be distributed the 14th of December to twenty poor families, or persons of forty years old each, by equal shares, reckoning husband and wife for one person, who should, before the receipt thereof, exactly and distinctly repeat the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Ten Commandments, without missing or changing one word therein. And if any man and wife should appear for a share in the said charity, it should not be a sufficient qualification for them that one of them made the exact rehearsal, but they should both make it, or else have no share at all in it. He also directed that no one should receive his charity twice, till all the poor of the parish should have received it once who should make the repetition aforesaid, that the advantage might spread as far as possible.

Attachment to a Family Name

John Nicholson of London, Stationer, by will, dated 28th of April, 1717, after bequeathing several specific legacies, gave all the residue of his estate in charity towards the support and maintenance of such poor persons of the Kingdom of England as should appear to be of the name of Nicholson, being Protestants; and he directed that it should be disposed of in the following manner, namely:

One hundred pounds a year to two such poor persons, men or women, of the name of Nicholson, towards their advancement in marriage; to each of them £50; always observing that no more than £50 be given to any one couple so marrying.

One hundred pounds per annum towards putting to apprentice such poor boys and girls of the name of Nicholson, or towards setting them up, as his trustees should think fit.

And one hundred pounds per annum towards the support and maintenance of such poor men and women of the name of Nicholson, as his trustees should direct; always observing that not more than £10 a year and not less than £5 a year should be given to any one person; the said sums to be paid to them at their own habitations.

He appointed William Nicholson, Lord Bishop of Carlisle; Mr. Nicholson, the Bishop’s son; and three other persons of the name of Nicholson, two of whom were resident in London, trustees, and left to them the entire management of this charity and appointed them his executors.

Bequest to pay Marriage Fees

Mr. Thomas Hatch, of Winkfield, Berks, England, by will, dated 3d of December, 1778, gave to the churchwardens of Winkfield £200 to be laid out in the public funds, the interest to be applied to the payment of the fees for such poor persons as are willing to marry, but cannot pay the expense.

After the payment of the marriage fees of such couples as claim it, the residue is distributed by the churchwardens in small sums of money and articles of clothing to such poor persons as they may think deserving.

Will leaving a Fund to endow a Rosière

By her will, dated 6th of December, 1870, a lady of Puteaux, Madame Jeanne Cartault, bequeathed to that parish the sum of fifteen thousand francs, the interest of which was to be employed every year in providing a marriage portion for the most deserving among the poor working girls, and was to be called the Cartault foundation. The gift only to be made over to the recipient on her marriage, and the administrator to pay the amount only on the wedding-day, and in presence of the registrar. The marriage to take place on or about the 17th of January, being the wedding-day of Madame Cartault.

A clause in the will provides that the firstborn of this marriage shall, if a boy, take the name of Edmond—that of M. Cartault, and, if a girl, that of Jeanne—being the name of the testatrix.

According to these directions, on the 29th of January, 1874, took place the crowning of the first Rosière of Puteaux, in conformity with the prescriptions of the will, and with it the donation of the amount of one year’s interest on the sum bequeathed—seven hundred and fifty francs.

The choice had fallen on a young woman of twenty-four, Mademoiselle Eugénie Bouillaud. Her qualifications justified the selection. She was an orphan, and from the time she was ten years of age had worked for the support of her grandparents, who lived in extreme poverty. Her mother died when she was born, and her father was killed in trying to rescue a fellow-workman from a well into which he had fallen.

The ceremony was rendered picturesque by the arrangements made to honor the occasion, but for some reason every demonstration of a religious nature was excluded. An immense tent had been erected near the mayor’s house, decorated with flags and banners. The proceedings were opened with a piece of orchestral music, admirably executed by the Orpheonic band of the town. The mayor made a neat and appropriate speech, after which M. Laboulaye addressed the Rosière and the assembled spectators.

The concluding incident of the ceremony was the crowning of the young girl, whose quiet, modest demeanor well became her pale but interesting face. Her name was then inscribed on the virgin page of the Livre d’or des Rosières de Puteaux, and her autograph signature was written beneath it with a somewhat trembling hand.