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, about 6,000
-------
Total $36,000
“Would the whole estate have been more than this wife was entitled to?
“A bride was presented by her uncle with $2000, with which the thrifty
bridegroom bought sheep. It proved a profitable investment, and in time
they were well-to-do. At the expiration of fifty years of matrimony and
mutual toil (which included the rearing of six children) the husband
died. By his last will and testament he gave to his beloved wife two
thousand dollars in cash, or her dower interest in his real estate. The
wife took the cash. Her original two thousand dollars for fifty years
then amounted to about $60,000.
“This shows that a wife may be considered to be a good investment.
* * * * *
“A clerk in a delicatessen store in a large city married a German
governess. They started a similar store of their own and lived in the
rear. The wife did the housework and the cooking and baking for the
store, and between times waited on customers. They were frugal and
prospered. After twenty years the husband died. The wife naturally
thought she was entitled to the property, at least a portion of it. But
the husband had made a will prior to his marriage, whereby he devised
his property to his brothers and sisters.”
* * * * *
“The staple argument of the opponents of equal laws for men and women is
that wives are privileged in that they can do with their own as they
like, while the husbands cannot. But is the property the husband’s any
more than the wife’s when they accumulate it jointly? Up to the
marriageable age girls earn nothing; after marriage their services
belong to their husbands. Where is the opportunity to accumulate
property which shall be their very own in the eyes of the law, with
which they may do as they like? What provision can they make for
possible incapacity and certain old age if they live?”
WILL OF A CHINAMAN
There was filed in the Surrogate’s Office of Queens County, New York, on
October 1, 1910, what the newspapers refer to as the queerest instrument
ever recorded in New York City. The testator was John Ling, a Chinaman,
of Woodbridge, New Jersey.
The original will was probated in Middlesex County, New Jersey, but as
Ling was the owner of considerable real estate in Queens County, before
settlement could be made an exemplified copy of the will had to be filed
there.
It appears that John Ling, Jr., a son of the deceased, had taken an
Irish bride, much against the will of his father. The Chinaman was
enraged, and talked long and earnestly with his son upon the subject.
But to no avail. The young man refused to leave his Irish bride. When
the old man died, he left the following will:
“First, I leave and bequeath to John Ling, my son, the sum of $1. With
the said sum of $1, or 100 cents, I wish that he would purchase a rope
strong and long enough to support his Irish wife; the said sum of $1 to
be paid six months after my decease by my wife, her heirs or executors.
“Secondly, I leave and bequeath to my wife, Mary Ling, all property,
whether in America or England, that I may be possessed of, during her
natural life; and at her death said property is to be equally divided
between Samson and Mary Ling, son and daughter of John and Mary Ling;
and should neither Samson nor Mary survive to come in possession of the
said property now belonging to John and Mary Ling, the property is then
to descend unto John Ling, the son of Joseph Ling, my nephew, now
residing in Europe, with the exception of the $1 to be paid to my son,
John Ling.”
TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A HUSBAND
According to the _New York Sun_, an attractive young German woman of
Washington, D.C., walked into a newspaper office in that city on October
11, 1910, and requested the insertion of the following advertisement:
“‘Young woman, fairly wealthy, from foreign country, desires to meet at
once some poor young man. Object, matrimony.’
“She gave her name as Eugenie Adams, but admitted that this was an
assumed name. She said she was willing to give her prospective husband
a bonus of $200. She explained that her uncle, who lived in Germany, had
named her as the beneficiary in his will, provided she married in a
week.
“‘You see it is this way,’ she explained with a German accent, ‘my old
uncle is very eccentric. He lives in the Fatherland, where all my people
are. He has named me the beneficiary of his will if I am married by a
week from to-day. I am very poor. I want the money. I plan to get
married in order to obtain it. I will pay any young man $200 to marry
me.
“‘But I will be no trouble to him,’ she continued. ‘I will get a divorce
from him at once and never see him again. I do not want to remain
married. I only want to return to Germany at once with my marriage
papers. Could a man make $200 in an easier way?’
“She declined to give the amount of the legacy she expected to obtain
through her marriage.”
THE RESULT
The _St. Louis Times_ in a recent editorial comments on the
“Two-hundred-dollar Husband,” as follows:
“We have been much interested in a story which has been telegraphed from
Washington, and which relates the circumstances under which a
presentable fraulein bought a husband, in order that she might inherit
an estate--which was willed her on the condition that she marry within a
given time.
“She appears to have wanted the estate badly, though the idea of having
a husband did not appeal to her at all. Perhaps there was a ruddy faced
Heine at home with whom she had danced in the old days, and who still
held her heart in thrall. Be that as it may--as Laura Jean Libbey would
say--she married her emergency husband in Washington only because she
had to, in order to get the estate.
“She did not wish ever to see her husband again, and when a sailor
appeared in response to her advertisement, she rather liked the looks of
him--for the occasion at hand--but decided, wisely, that he would not
do, because ‘he travelled around the world, and she might see him
again.’ She finally decided in favor of one Harry Oliver Brown, who wore
a flowing sandy mustache, and a celluloid collar, and carried a
walking-stick. We should have thought the flowing sandy mustache would
have been enough, though we have no objection to the celluloid collar
and the walking-stick, if they be thought to possess a corroborative
value.
“And so the two were married, and Mrs. Brown gave her hired husband $200
and bade him good-by and left, without even saying she would hurry back,
and boarded a ship for the Fatherland, where the estate was--and,
presumably, is.
“We have related this quaint fable because it seems to possess a
valuable idea for those who contemplate matrimony, not because they
consider themselves fitted for it in any way, but because they feel they
‘have to get married’--so much the slave to public opinion are many
estimable young people.
“If the thing has to be done, we commend the method of Mrs. Harry Oliver
Brown. A sandy mustache, a celluloid collar, and a walking-stick can
always be had for a song--and there is not a very heavy percentage of
sailors.”
KNEW HER DISPOSITION
It is recorded of an old English farmer, that, in giving instructions
for his will, he directed a legacy of one hundred pounds be given to his
widow. Being informed that some distinction was usually made in case the
widow married again, he doubled the sum; and when told that this was
quite contrary to custom, he said, with heartfelt sympathy for his
possible successor, “Aye, but him as gets her’ll deserve it.”
CLOTHES ON A HICKORY LIMB
The will of Charles C. Dickinson, former president of the Carnegie Trust
Company, who died a few months ago, contains a bequest of $4000 for the
education of his son Charles, at Cornell, with the strange stipulation
that the son shall forfeit this allowance if he goes “to or upon Cayuga
Lake.”
The lake is used by the Cornell crews and by students for canoeing and
sailing.
To a nephew he leaves $2000 for educational purposes, with the same
restrictions regarding Cayuga Lake.
SARCASTIC WILL
A British sailor requested his executors to pay to his wife one
shilling, wherewith to buy hazelnuts, as she had always preferred
cracking nuts to mending his stockings.
A CONTRITE HUSBAND
J. Withipol of Walthamstow, Essex County, England, left his landed
estates to his wife, “trusting, yea, I may say, as I think, assuring
myself, that she will marry no man, for fear to meet with so evil a
husband as I have been to her.”
AUNT LUNKY’S WILL
The author has sought with little success for wills which would portray
the character of the negro race, although the aid of Mr. Booker T.
Washington was enlisted in this behalf. One, however, is offered:
Aunt Lunky was a negro servant and resided in Jacksonville, Illinois.
For several generations, she had lived with the same family and had been
a party to all household duties and functions during that period: she
made her will, and her savings, some two hundred and fifty dollars, she
left to “little Billie.” “Little Billie” was the great-grandson of her
employer, and the pet of the household: in order that there might be no
mistake in identifying the legatee, a picture of the baby boy was
securely attached to the testament.
WILL OF THE DUCHESSE DE PRASLIN
By her will made in 1784, this testatrix, strangely enough, disinherited
her own children, being falsely persuaded that her husband had
substituted for them others whom he had had by an actress. She made her
legatees the grandchildren of the Prince de Soubise, whom she did not
even know. Her will was contested, and set aside. It contained another
singular bequest--that by which she left to her husband a model of the
Cheval de Bronze (the equestrian statue of Henri IV. on the Pont Neuf).
MUST EVER PRAY
Not long ago an Italian nobleman left all his money, which amounted to
about $50,000, to his wife, “to be disposed of according to her own
ideas,” provided she entered a religious order and spent the rest of her
life praying for the repose of his soul. If she refused the conditions,
the money went to the order direct, and she got nothing.
The poor woman is now fighting the will in court, and there is said to
be some prospect that the estate will be divided and one-half, or at
least a life interest in the income, given to her. This, however, can be
done only by compromise.
The reason for this strange condition is said to have been revenge. The
wife had a lover, and the husband did not discover the fact until during
his last sickness, when she neglected previous precautions and he
learned of her flirtations. The husband was also afraid that she would
marry her lover, and is said to have told his lawyer that he would fix
things so that the scoundrel could not have the benefit of his money,
even if he did enjoy the affections of his wife.
A COLD WORLD
Ellen H. Cooper, West Somerset Street, Philadelphia, died recently.
Pathos and worldly wisdom are mingled in her will. She wrote the
instrument with her own hand. It follows in part:
“All the money and furniture I have has been saved through my earnings
and hard work, therefore, I wish my two sons, John W. Cooper and Bernard
M. Cooper, to follow to the letter my wishes.
“My one real anxiety has been their future after my death. They cannot
now realize what a lonely life theirs will be without home or parents,
for I know, except one has money, there is no one to care what becomes
of one. Therefore I have saved for one purpose, that if either, or both,
live to be old and unable to work you may find a home and pay so much to
be kept the rest of their lives. There will be enough left to clothe
you. All I am possessed of I want put out at interest. I do not want one
cent of it spent otherwise, excepting what it takes to pay my funeral
expenses. Remember, dear boys, this is a cold world and I would long
since have been glad to lay down my burden had it not been for my love
for you.”
BEAUTIFUL SENTIMENTS TO WIVES
As an expression of controlling impulses and ideas, the will has ever
been associated with the home and family life. Some of the purest and
sweetest sentiments of the human heart are often contained in these
legal muniments. They are often the permanent repositories of the
loftiest feelings of conjugal and domestic affection. More than fifty
per cent of the wills made bequeath the bulk of the estate, absolutely
or for life, to the surviving spouse.
A beautiful expression of this holy sentiment of affection is found in
the will of John Starkey, probated in 1861. This testator says: “The
remainder of my wealth is vested in the affection of my dear wife, with
whom I leave it, in the good hope of resuming it more pure, bright and
precious, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where there are
no railways or monetary panics or fluctuations of exchange, but
steadfast, though progressive and unspeakable riches of glory and
immortality.”
The following is another example of solicitude for a devoted wife.
Sharon Turner, the eminent author of the “History of the Anglo-Saxons,”
dying in his eightieth year, in 1847, left this testimonial to his wife,
who had died before him: “It is my comfort to have remembered that I
have passed with her nearly forty-nine years of unabated affection and
connubial happiness, and yet she is still living, as I earnestly hope
and believe, under her Saviour’s care, in a superior state of being.” He
was anxious that her portrait, which he directed should be painted and
bequeathed, should correctly represent her. He then adds: “None of the
portraits of my beloved wife give any adequate representation of her
beautiful face, nor of the sweet and intellectual and attractive
appearance of her living features and general countenance and
character.”
KINDNESS TO WIDOWS
Testators in the present day frequently and ungallantly leave property
to their widows only so long as they shall remain unmarried. In looking
through some of the wills of the time of Henry VII., we do not find such
a condition attached. There are many instances to be found, however, of
the husband’s affectionate care for the future comfort of his wife. To
quote two or three: First, from the will of William Parker: “Also I make
Master John Aggecombe, Alderman of Oxford, my overseer, to se my last
will performed; and I geve to hym for his labour my best crymsyn gowne
so that he be frendly to Alice my wife.” In the will of Robert Offe, of
Boston, Lincolnshire, after appointing Master Thomas Robynson and Master
John Robynson overseers, he goes on to say: “And I beseche you, maisters
both, that ye be good frends unto my wyf, and that ye will help her.”
William Holybrande, gentleman citizen and “tailler” of London, bequeaths
to each of his executors, William Bodley and William Grove, for their
labor, £5 sterling, and “to be goode and kynde to my wyfe.” He appoints
as overseer, “Robert Joyns, my cousin, one of the gentleman ushers of
the chambre of our Sovaigne Lorde the Kynge,” and bequeaths to him £5
sterling “for his labour, and that he may help my wyfe in all her
troubill, if any shall happen to her here after.” He also gives and
bequeaths “to Roger Delle, my servant, so that he be lovyng and gentill
to my wyfe, and give a trewe accompte for such besynese as he hath
reconyng of, £5 sterlinge.” These three wills were all proved in 1505.
WOULD NOT BE GOOD
In 1772, a gentleman of Surrey, England, died, and his will being opened
was found to contain this peculiar clause, “Whereas, it was my
misfortune to be made very uneasy by ----, my wife, for many years from
our marriage, by her turbulent behavior, for she was not content to
despise my admonitions, but she contrived every method to make me
unhappy; she was so perverse in her nature that she would not be
reclaimed, but seemed only to be born to be a plague to me; the strength
of Samson, the knowledge of Homer, the prudence of Augustus, the cunning
of Pyrrhus, the patience of Job, the subtlety of Hannibal and the
watchfulness of Hermogenes could not have been sufficient to subdue her;
for no skill or force in the world would make her good; and as we have
lived separate and apart from each other for eight years, and, she
having perverted her son to leave and totally abandon me, therefore, I
give her a shilling.”
MUST REMAIN AT HOME
The last will and testament of Lawrence Engler was admitted to probate
September 19, 1910, at Columbus, Ohio. It disposes of an estate valued
at $10,000. He was killed in a recent wreck on the Hocking Valley
Railroad near Toledo.
He provides in his will that his widow and their children be given the
proceeds resulting from the rent of his property and that they all must
remain at home. When they leave, they forfeit all rights to the income.
So long as they live together they are to share the income, but when one
leaves he loses his interest.
This arrangement is to remain during the life of all, but no provision
is made for the disposal of the remainder.
The will is peculiar in another way. The testator, after its execution,
took the liberty of striking out some of the provisions without having
the amendments witnessed. He failed to make a codicil, but does say that
he did the scratching himself.
DANGER IN MUTUAL WILLS
The wills of Mrs. Mary Louise Woeltge and Professor Albert Woeltge were
filed in the Probate Court at Stamford, Connecticut, on September 20,
1910, and they reveal a somewhat unusual situation. Professor Woeltge
was the first to pass away at Walpole, New Hampshire, on September 12th.
His wife died there a day later. Both left wills executed April 11,
1895. Professor Woeltge left all his estate to his wife and appointed
her sole executrix. Mrs. Woeltge by her will left all her property to
her husband.
Professor Woeltge inserted a clause by way of explanation to his nephew,
Albert A. Woeltge, and his niece, Lillie Woeltge, both of New York, of
this disposition of the estate. It was, in effect, that the money by
which he acquired the property disposed of in the will came most, if not
all of it, from his wife or her mother.
Professor Woeltge left two letters, one addressed to his wife and the
other to his niece and nephew. The letter to his wife carried a direct
expression of desire that on her death all the money he left her go to
the children of his brother William, “that they might know that I loved
them best after you.” The question arises as to who will get the
property.
THE WORST OF WOMEN
Henry, Earl of Stafford, who followed the fortunes of his royal master
James II., and attended him in his exile to France, married there the
daughter of the Duc de Grammont, at the end of the seventeenth century.
The marriage was a most unhappy one, and, after fourteen years’
endurance of the disgraceful conduct of his wife, he wrote as follows in
his will:
“To the worst of women, Claude Charlotte de Grammont, unfortunately my
wife, guilty as she is of all crimes, I leave five-and-forty brass
halfpence, which will buy a pullet for her supper. A better gift than
her father can make her; for I have known when, having not the money,
neither had he the credit for such a purchase; he being the worst of
men, and his wife the worst of women, in all debaucheries. Had I known
their characters I had never married their daughter, and made myself
unhappy.”
TOOK THE SON’S PART
Sir Robert Bevill, Knight, who held an official position at court under
James I., was the representative of an old Hunts family, and held by
entail the estates of Chesterton in that county. Dying in 1635, his
will, which it appears was made within a very short time of his death,
was proved, and in it occur the following clauses relative to his wife
and his daughter’s husband, with whom he died at enmity. These
vindictive behests, be it observed, are preceded by a very devout and
godly preface, bequeathing his soul “into the hands of its Maker,
stedfastly believing in, and by the merits of, our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, to obteyne free pardon and forgiveness of al my sinnes,
and at the last day to have and receive a glorious resurrection.”
Immediately follows: “I give and bequeath to my son-in-law, Sir John
Hewell, Baronet, tenn shillings and noe more, in respect he stroke and
ceaselessly fought with mee.
“Item: I give unto my wyfe tenn shillings in respect she took her sonnes
part against me, and did anymate and comfort him afterwards. These will
not be forgotten.” Furthermore, the testator, in resentment against his
said wife--“inasmuch as she hath not only deserted mee, but hath taken
into her own possession all her own goods, and hath disposed of them at
her own pleasure”--declares his determination “to make no ampler
provision for her.”
He concludes this vindictive will by leaving all his large estates to
his second son.
This will is not exactly of the class alluded to by Steele in one of his
plays, where he makes one of the characters, a widow, remark, “There is
no will of an husband so cheerfully obeyed as his last.”
ACCUSED OF EVERY CRIME
John Parker, a bookseller, living in Old Bond Street, served his wife in
the following manner, leaving her no more than fifty pounds, and in the
following words:
“To one Elizabeth Parker, whom through fondness I made my wife, without
regard to family, fame, or fortune, and who in return has not spared
most unjustly to accuse me of every crime regarding human nature, except
highway robbery, I bequeath the sum of fifty pounds.”
BETWEEN THE LINES
A rich man, making his will, left legacies to all his servants except
his steward, to whom he gave nothing, on the plea that, “having been in
my service in that capacity twenty years I have too high an opinion of
his shrewdness to suppose he has not sufficiently enriched _himself_.”
MENIAL SERVICE REQUIRED
A year or two ago, a Russian gentleman, living at Odessa, bequeathed
four million roubles to his four nieces, but they were to receive the
money only after having worked for a year as washerwomen, chambermaids
or farm servants. These conditions were carried out, and while occupying
such humble positions, it is gratifying to learn that they received over
eight hundred and sixty offers of marriage.
NO MUSTACHES
The will of Mr. Henry Budd, which came into force in 1862, declared
against the wearing of mustaches by his sons, in the following terms:
“In case my son Edward shall wear mustaches, then the devise
hereinbefore contained in favour of him, his appointees, heirs, and
assigns of my said estate called Pepper Park, shall be void; and I
devise the same estate to my son William, his appointees, heirs, and
assigns. And in case my said son William shall wear mustaches, then the
devise hereinbefore contained in favour of him, his appointees, heirs,
and assigns of my said estate called Twickenham Park, shall be void; and
I devise the said estate to my said son Edward, his appointees, heirs,
and assigns.”
WILL OF WILLIAM PYM
The will of William Pym, of Woolavington, Somerset, gent., is worth
citing for its originality. It bears date January 10, 1608.
After various charitable bequests, the last of which specifies the sum
of twelvepence to the church at Wells, he proceeds:
“I give to Agnes, which I did a long time take for my wyfe--till shee
denyd me to be her husband, all though wee were marryd with my friends’
consent, her father, mother, and uncle at it; and now she swareth she
will neither love mee nor evyr bee perswaded to, by preechers, nor by
any other, which hath happened within these few yeres. And Toby
Andrewes, the beginner, which I did see with mine own eyes when hee did
more than was fitting, and this by means of others their abettors. I
have lived a miserable life this six or seven yeres, and now I leve the
revenge to God--and tenn pounds to buy her a gret horse, for I could not
this manny yeres plese her with one gret enough.”
Two years after writing this bitter record of his wrongs, William Pym,
gent., gave up the ghost, and his last wishes were faithfully carried
out by his two executors.
CONTRARY TO ROOSEVELT’S IDEA
The malevolence of some men is manifested in their deaths, as well as in
their lives. A certain wealthy man left this provision in his will:
“Should my daughter marry and be afflicted with children, the trustees
are to pay out of said legacy, Ten Thousand Dollars on the birth of the
first child, to the ---- Hospital; Twenty Thousand Dollars, on the
second; Thirty Thousand Dollars, on the third; and an additional Ten
Thousand Dollars on the birth of each fresh child, till the One Hundred
and Fifty Thousand Dollars is exhausted. Should any portion of this sum
be left at the end of twenty years, the balance is to be paid to her to
use as she thinks fit.” This item would, no doubt, interest our late
President, Theodore Roosevelt.
WIFE’S DESERTION REWARDED
A certain Glasgow doctor died some ten years ago, and left his whole
estate to his sisters. In his will appeared this unusual clause: “To my
wife, as a recompense for deserting me and leaving me in peace, I expect
the said sister, Elizabeth, to make her a gift of ten shillings
sterling, to buy her a pocket handkerchief to weep after my decease.”
WOULD NOT WEAR THE CAP
A husband left his wife sixty thousand dollars, to be increased to one
hundred and twenty thousand dollars, provided she wore a widow’s cap
after his death. She accepted the larger amount, wore the cap for six
months, and then put it off. A lawsuit followed, but the judge gave the
widow a judgment and stated that the word “always” should have been
inserted. Shortly after the rendition of the judgment, the widow
entered into the state of matrimony.
STRANGE REQUIREMENT AS TO MARRIAGE
In 1805, Mr. Edward Hurst left a very large fortune to his only son on
condition that the latter should seek out and marry a young lady, whom
the father, according to his own statement, had, by acts for which he
prayed forgiveness, reduced to the extremity of poverty; or failing her,
her nearest unmarried female heir. The latter, by the irony of fate,
turned out to be a spinster of fifty-five, who, professing herself
willing to carry out her share of the imposed duty, was duly united to
the young man, who had just reached his majority.
A HAPPY WIFE
Many wills have reference to the domestic felicity, or otherwise,
experienced by those who executed them. As an example of the former, we
may give the following passage from the testament of Lady Palmerston, an
ancestress of the celebrated Premier. Referring to her husband, she
says, “As I have long given you my heart and tenderest affections and
fondest wishes have always been yours, so is everything else that I
possess; and all that I can call mine being already yours, I have
nothing to give but my heartiest thanks for the care and kindness you
have at all times shown me, either in sickness or in health, for which
God Almighty will, I hope, reward you in a better world.” Then, for
“form’s sake,” follow several specific bequests.
MUST WALK BAREFOOTED
A wife who domineers over her husband sometimes discovers that she has
made a serious mistake. Ten years ago the London (England) newspapers
reported that a publican (housekeeper) took a curious revenge on a
nagging wife, whose sharp tongue had given him many bad days while he
lived. When his will was read, she learned that in order to receive any
property she must walk barefooted to the market-place each time the
anniversary of his death came around. Holding a candle in her hand, she
was there to read a paper confessing her unseemly behavior to her
husband while he lived, and stating that had her tongue been shorter,
her husband’s days would probably have been longer. By refusing to
comply with these terms she had to be satisfied with “twenty pounds a
year to keep her off the parish.”
ANTICIPATING THE PAST
It was Mrs. Malaprop in Sheridan’s delightful comedy, “The Rivals,” who
declined to “anticipate the past.”
Mr. John B. Luther, whose will is given below, certainly had the past in
mind when the instrument was drawn; it seems clear that he desired to
“anticipate the past” in so far as a provision for forgotten widows and
children was concerned. The testator formerly lived in Fall River,
Massachusetts, but his will was probated in San Francisco; he left an
estate valued at more than $100,000.
“I do hereby declare that I am not married and that I have no children.
I have noticed, however, the facility with which sworn testimony can be
procured and produced in support of the claims of alleged widows and
adopted children, and the frequent recurrence of such claims in recent
years. I therefore make express provision in this my last will as
follows: I give and bequeath to such person as shall be found, proved,
and established to be my surviving wife or widow, whether the marriage
be found to have taken place before or after the execution of this will,
the sum of $5, and to each and every person who shall be found, proved,
and established to be my child by birth, adoption, acknowledgment, or
otherwise, and whether before or after the execution of this will, the
sum of $5, and I declare that I do intentionally omit to make for any of
the persons in this paragraph referred to any other or further
provision.”
2
ANIMALS
“Kind hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood.”
LOWER ANIMALS HAVE SOULS
The _Peoples Pulpit_, a publication issued by the “Brooklyn Tabernacle,”
in a recent issue under the title, “What is a Soul?” says:
“Thus we see why it is that the Scriptures speak of ‘souls’ in
connection with the lower animals. They, as well as man, are sentient
beings or creatures of intelligence, only of lower orders. They, as well
as man, can see, hear, feel, taste and smell; and each can reason up to
the standard of his own organism, though none can reason as abstrusely
nor on as high a plane as man. This difference is not because man has a
_different kind of life_ from that possessed by the lower animals; for
all have similar vital forces, from the same fountain or source of life,
the same Creator; all sustain life in the same manner, by the digestion
of similar foods, producing blood, and muscles, and bones, etc., each
according to his kind or nature; and each propagates his species
similarly, bestowing the _life_, originally from God, upon his
posterity. They differ in shape and in mental capacity.
“Nor can it be said that while man is a _soul_ (or intelligent being)
beasts are without this soul-quality or intelligence, thought, feeling.
On the contrary, both man and beast have soul-quality or intelligent,
conscious being. Not only is this the statement of Scripture, but it is
readily discernible as a fact, as soon as the real meaning of the word
‘soul’ is comprehended, as shown in the foregoing. To illustrate:
Suppose the creation of a perfect dog; and suppose that creation had
been particularly described, as was Adam’s, what difference of detail
could be imagined? The body of a dog created would not be a dog until
the breath of life would be caused to energize that body; then it would
be a _living creature_ with sensibilities and powers all its own--a
living soul of the lower order, called dog, as Adam, when he received
life, became a _living creature_ with sensibilities and powers all his
own--a living soul of the highest order of flesh beings, called man.”
A HEAVEN FOR BEASTS
Bishop Butler and Theodore Parker offered the suggestion that there is a
future for beasts, and a poem has been dedicated “To my Pony in Heaven,”
by Mr. Sewell of Exeter College.
GOLDFISH AND FLOWERS
A certain lady left seventy pounds a year for the maintenance of three
goldfish, which were to be identified as follows: “one is bigger than
the other two, and these latter are to be easily recognized, as one is
fat and the other lean.” She also made provision for flowers to be
placed upon the graves of the gold fish.
BEQUEST TO A FISH
We have heard of lucky dogs often enough--instances of lucky fish are
more rare, yet we can tell of two carps who have been testamentarily
benefited. One is, or rather was, too well known to the tourist who has
seen Fontainebleau, to need more than a passing mention, as he only paid
the debt of nature a few years ago, having occupied the royal pond, it
is said, more than a century, probably in order to bear out the proverb
which gives long lives to annuitants; the other was the mute but valued
friend of the Count of Mirandola, who had been in his intimacy since
1805, dwelling in an elegant antique piscina, shaded by tropical plants,
in an oriel of his _salon_ at Lucca, where he was still living as late
as 1835, and may be there still. The count, dying in 1825, left him a
handsome annuity, with special directions for his treatment.
BEQUEST TO A PARROT
A rich and eccentric widow, whose will was proved in London some years
ago, left at her death a parrot, whom, “having been her faithful
companion for 24 years,” she left in charge of an appointee, with an
annuity of one hundred guineas, the existence and identity of the bird
to be proved twice a year, and all payments to be withheld from the
moment the feathered pensioner ceased to be produced.
POLLY WANTS A CONTEST
In July last, at Washington, D.C., a will contest was commenced, which
involves the life or death of a parrot.
It appears Mrs. Ottilie Stock left a will, by the terms of which her
parrot was doomed to Oslerization by the process of chloroform. Her
daughter, Elizabeth Stock, questioned the validity of the will. It seems
that Elizabeth was left one dollar in money, two kitchen chairs, two
pails and one broom; hence, the will contest.
Mrs. Stock, the testatrix, was the mother of one of the men who went to
his death on the ill-fated battleship _Maine_, in the harbor of Havana.
What behavior induced the death sentence on Polly, is not known.
WILL OF MRS. ELIZABETH HUNTER
This lady, a resident of London, having for many years enjoyed the
society of a pet parrot, and being anxious as to the fate of her
favorite after her death, bequeathed an annuity of £200, to be paid
quarterly, so long as the parrot should live and its identity be
satisfactorily proved. This annuity of £50 quarterly was left in the
first instance to Mrs. Mary Dyer, of Park Street, Westminster, with a
proviso that should that trustee die before the parrot, the sum should
continue to be paid to some “respectable female who should _not_ be a
servant.” One would think the testatrix must have had in her mind the
story of Gay’s cat--“Nor cruel Tom nor Susan heard!” Moreover, it was to
dwell in a cage that was to cost not less than £20, and which was to be
“high, long, large and roomy”; the bird also was “not to be taken out of
England.” This will was probated in 1813.
A CAGED ANNUITANT
An elderly spinster, by name Caroline Hunter, wishing to provide for a
favorite parrot, bequeathed the bird with a legacy of one thousand
pounds to a widow, a friend of hers, giving her power to transfer both
the pet and the money to any third person, provided it were to one of
the female sex, who would undertake not to leave England. There was a
special bequest of twenty guineas to provide a very high and handsome
cage, into which the parrot was to be removed, and the executors were
charged, in the event of the charge and bequest being refused by the
widow, to see that the parrot was committed to the care of some
trustworthy, respectable person. The will concludes: “I will and desire
that whoever attempts to dispute this my last will and testament, or by
any means tries to frustrate these my intentions, shall forfeit whatever
I have left him, her, or them. And if any one to whom I have left
legacies attempt to bring any bill or charge against me, it is my will
and desire they shall forfeit whatever legacy I may have left them. I
owe nothing to any one--many owe me gratitude and money, but none have
paid me either.”
HORSES TO BE SHOT
Frederick Christian Winslow was born in 1752; he was Councillor of
State, professor of surgery, and knight of the order of Danebrog. His
works on surgery have been translated into almost all the languages of
Europe. He was grand-nephew of the celebrated anatomist, James Benignus
Winslow. He died at Copenhagen, June 24, 1811.
His will disposes of property amounting to 37,000 crowns, but contains
only one clause which can be considered singular, viz.: that which
orders that his carriage-horses should be shot, lest after his death
they come to be ill-treated by any person who might buy them.
WILL IN FAVOR OF A HORSE
Among the archives of Toulouse exists the registry of a singular will,
made by a countryman of the immediate environs in 1781. This peasant,
who was the owner of a considerable sum of money, besides his house and
the land surrounding it, had no children, but had attached himself to a
horse he always rode, though it does not seem to have been particularly
comely in appearance. His affection for this animal was very constant;
for, finding himself seriously ill, and having decided on making his
will, he disposed of all his property in favor of the four-footed
favorite in these terms: “I declare that I appoint my russet cob my
universal heir, and I desire that he may belong to my nephew George.”
As may be supposed, the will was contested; but, strange to say, it was
ultimately confirmed. An experienced jurisconsult, by name Claude
Serres, professor of “droit civil” at Montpellier, has cited the case,
and gives the reason for the decision arrived at, viz.: “That the will
being pronounced valid, the succession of the testator was adjudicated
to the nephew whom he had designated as proprietor of the horse, because
it was ruled that the simplicity of the rustic should secure to him the
execution of his last will, and that, having named his nephew as legatee
of the horse, he intended he should have it endowed with the bequests he
had bestowed upon it.”
HORSES AS LEGATEES
A curious will contest was instituted in January, 1911, in the Hungarian
courts. This contest turns upon the legality of the will of an eccentric
nobleman, Emile von Bizony, brother of a well-known deputy, who left all
his real and personal property, amounting to about $200,000, to be used
in behalf of his twelve draught horses.
As executor of his will, he named the Society for the Protection of
Animals at Budapest, stipulating that the interest on his estate should
be devoted to the care of his twelve draught horses, and that upon the
death of one of them another aged horse was to be taken in and cared
for, so that the number of twelve might always be maintained.
Herr von Bizony was sixty-five years of age, a confirmed misogynist, and
at odds with all his relatives, who were naturally amazed at the
contents of the will. His brother, the Deputy, Herr Alusins von Bizony,
disputed the will. Negotiations were made with the above-mentioned
society, and $20,000 was offered it, but refused, the society bringing
an action against the Bizony family for the retention of the property.
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A HORSE
An Irishman, James Gilwee, died in 1907 in Carondelet, a subdivision of
the city of Saint Louis: by his will, filed in the Probate Court of the
city of Saint Louis, he left two thousand dollars in trust, the revenue
from which was to be used in the support and comfort of a favorite
horse, “Tony”: the children of the deceased carefully respected the
wishes of their father, and the horse was shipped to Bloomington,
Illinois, where corn is plentiful and meadow grass is blue, and the
horse received every attention until his death, which occurred quite
recently. The two thousand dollars was thereupon divided between the
heirs.
DOMESTIC PETS
Mrs. Elizabeth Balls, late of Park Lodge, Streatham, England, whose will
was proved on the 5th of November, 1875, bequeathed to the Cancer
Hospital, £2,000 Consols; to the Institution for the Deaf and Dumb, Old
Kent Road, £1000 Consols; to the Blind Schools, Southwark, a like sum;
to the Idiots’ Asylum, Earlswood, £500 Consols; and to Guy’s and St.
Thomas’s hospitals, the like sum each. She directed that her late
husband’s cob mare and greyhound should not be sold, but that the former
should be kept in a comfortable, warm, loose box, as she had been kept
since her late master’s death; that she should not be put to work either
in or out of harness, and that her back should not be crossed by any
member of her late husband’s family, but that she should be ridden by a
person of light weight, not above four days a week, and not more than
one hour each day, at a walking pace. For the support of this mare Mrs.
Balls left £65 per annum, and for the keep and care of the greyhound £5
per annum.
BANK STOCK FOR A DOG
The late Mrs. T. P. Roe, of Canada, bequeathed to her little dog,
Frolic, the interest on four shares of Montreal Bank stock for use
during his lifetime, and at his death the same was to be sold and given
to the Church of St. John the Evangelist.
DOG PAINTED BY LANDSEER
For his faithful companion Pincher, Lord Eldon in 1838 made a
testamentary provision, bequeathing him to Lady Frances Bankes, with an
annuity of eight pounds during the term of his natural life, for his
maintenance.
“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,
6_s._ 8_d._
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 10_s_. 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., 40_s._
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.
TO PROMOTE BROTHERLY LOVE
Robert Halliday, of Eastcheap, London, by his will, dated 6th of May,
1491, gave estates in the parish of St. Leonard, Eastcheap, the rents to
be applied to various purposes, and, amongst others, 5_s._ to the
churchwardens yearly, either to make an entertainment among such persons
of his home parish of St. Clement, who should be at variance with each
other, in the week preceding Easter, to induce such persons to better
neighborhood, and to beget brotherly love amongst them; or if none
should be found in the said parish, then to make an entertainment with
the said 5_s._ at the tavern amongst the honest parishioners of the
said parish on the day of our Lord’s Supper, commonly called Shere
Thursday, that they may pray more fervently for the souls of certain
persons named in his will.
DRINKING
Edward Cooper, of Slinfold, Sussex, England, by his will, dated 10th of
February, 1621, gave 20_s._ a year out of lands called Whitbers, in
Slinfold, 15_s._ thereof to be bestowed by the churchwardens and
overseers upon a drinking, for the use of the poor of the parish yearly,
at the feast day of the Purification of the Virgin, in as good sort as
they could, and the other 5_s._ to drink withal themselves, for their
labor and pains therein.
The land is now called South Whitbreads, and the owner of the property
regularly pays the sum of £l yearly, which is distributed amongst the
poor at Christmas by the churchwardens and overseers.
ENCOURAGEMENT TO ATTEND DIVINE SERVICE
Thomas Walker, of St. James’s, Bristol, England, by his will, dated 25th
of April, 1666, ordered as follows: “I give and bequeath to that poor
parish of St. James the sum of £200, to purchase for ever the sum of £10
8_s._ 0_d._ a year for eight poor house-keepers that are known to live
in the fear of God, and to come unto the church every Lord’s day, a
six-penny loaf of bread every Sabbath day, after morning prayer, unto
these eight poor house-keepers for ever; but for God’s sake let them be
no drunkards nor common swearers--no, nor that do beg in the streets
from door to door, but let them be quiet people that do desire to live
in the fear of God. Pray let their bread be wheaten bread, and weight as
it ought to be.”
STORMY DAYS