The Providence News

SISTERS WIN IN WILL CASE.

The Contest Over Duryea's Will is to Be Reopened

DAUGHTERS WERE CUT OFF.

Millionaire Starch Manufacturer Left the Bulk of His Estate to Son, Who is Suffering From Broken Neck.

New York, Dec. 3.—A substantial victory has been gained by Mrs. Eva Duryea Thelberg, Mrs. Grace Duryea Sprigg and Mrs. Marcia Cox, daughters of Edgar E. Duryea, the millionaire starch manufacturer, of Glen Cove, L. I., in their endeavor to upset their father's will on the ground of undue influence exercised, as they say, by their brother, Walter E. Duryea, before and after the accident in which he broke his neck.

The surrogate has decided that the probate proceedings may be reopened on Dec. 11.

County Judge Seabury, who is also the surrogate of Nassau county, has for weeks been listening to arguments by J. Campbell Thompson and Townsend Scudder, of counsel for the Duryea sisters, urging the reopening of the proceedings.

These proceedings had been virtually abandoned by Pryor, Melliss & Harris who first represented the Duryea sisters, as soon as the four subscribing witnesses to the will had been examined. At that time it had been practically agreed to permit the issuance of the will to probate, to immediately take an appeal, and thus get the case before a jury in the Supreme court.

This arrangement, however, was unsatisfactory to the contestants, who argued that the major portion of the estate, valued at more than $2,000,000, would immediately fall into the hands of their brother, Walter E. Duryea; their cousins, Frank, Harry and Louis Duryea, and Edward T. Payne, their father's legal adviser, all of whom, they declare, are hostile to their interests.

THE NEW MOTION.

J. Campbell Thompson immediately went to Mineola and obtained an order to show cause why the proceedings before the surrogate should not be reopened ab initio.

He also applied for the appointment of a temporary administrator of the estate of Edgar E. Duryea on the ground of the hostility of Walter E. Duryea and the executors toward the three Duryea sisters.

Walter E. Duryea through his counsel Robert T. Honeyman, raised objection after objection to the proceedings being reopened. He protested that his sisters had voluntarily surrendered their rights before the surrogate, and that it was unfair to expect him to spend more time and money in defending the will.

Scores of affidavits have been showered on Judge Seabury by both sides. Walter Duryea accused his sisters of having ransacked and robbed the family mansion at Glen Cove, known as The Elms. This they denied with great vigor. After several weeks of argument Judge Seabury has announced his decision.

IN FAVOR OF DAUGHTERS.

It was in favor of the three daughters and permits the reopening of the contest before the surrogate, but not ab initio. In other words, the four witnesses examined during the trial of the first contest cannot be re-examined. These were the four witnesses to the signing of the will by Edgar E. Duryea. The motion for the appointment of a temporary administrator was, for the present, denied.

The hearing of testimony is to begin at Mineola, L. I., on Tuesday, Dec. 11.

"We are very much gratified," said Mrs. Grace Duryea Sprigg, "to learn that we have won a signal victory in the contest. We are not really antagonistic to Walter. All that we ask is that our father's estate be equally divided."

J. Campbell Thompson, the attorney for Mrs. Sprigg, Mrs. Thelberg and Mrs. Cox, said he was delighted at the success of his efforts in behalf of the Duryea sisters and stated that he had accumulated a mass of testimony, which, when produced in court, would satisfy any reasonable mind of the fraud which had been attempted to be perpetrated on his clients.

"A mass of medical testimony has been accumulated," he said, "for the purpose of showing to the court the lack of mental capacity on the part of the deceased millionaire, due to his habits and excesses.

THE NEW AFFIDAVITS.

"In addition to the medical testimony affidavits have been collected from various acquaintances of the late Mr. Duryea, all of which go to prove his intemperance and his insane delusions. A direct attack will be made upon those who were instrumental in creating the alleged will now being contested. The peculiarities of the situation at the time of the making of this alleged will will be shown up.

"For the purpose of showing the way in which the old man was deluded an incident wherein Walter Duryea plays a leading part will be laid bare.

"Inasmuch as the proponents of the will have claimed that Mr. Duryea was justified in cutting off his daughters, the unveiling of this incident will show that much greater cause existed for the exercise of parental discrimination in the case of his son Walter."