NO UNDERCLOTHES IN WINTER

A crabbed old German professor, who died at Berlin in 1900, entertaining

a great dislike for his sole surviving relative, left his property to

him, but on the absolute condition that he should always wear white

linen clothes at all seasons of the year, and should not supplement them

in winter by extra undergarments.

Had $100, gave away $700,000

A singular will was that of Miss Cora Johnson, who resided in an

apartment at No. 819 Beacon Street, Boston, and who died in September,

1910, at a hospital in that city. The value of her entire possessions,

when inventoried, was found not to exceed $100, and she was buried by

friends; yet, by her will, she created bequests and legacies amounting

to $700,000; she claimed that she was entitled to a large fortune from

the estate of an unnamed person living in New York.

Miss Johnson, it is claimed, never revealed the name of this person, and

even her attorney, who drew her will, was not acquainted with it; all

she disclosed was that she expected a large estate from a wealthy,

elderly woman, who made her will in her favor and became insane, and was

in a sanitarium in New York, and this will could not be changed by

reason of the insanity of the testator. Evidently, she had a firm

conviction that the estate must reach her, in any event.

That part of the will referring to the promised millions reads:

“Whereas it is possible that at the time of my decease I shall not be

the owner of property sufficient in amount to pay the foregoing

bequests, and

“Whereas I have been credibly informed and believe that there is in

existence a certain will made by a person now an inhabitant of the city

and state of New York by which will certain property is devised and

bequeathed to me, and

“Whereas I have been credibly informed and believe that in said will it

is provided, that in case I shall die before the maker of said will, the

property therein bequeathed and devised to me, shall pass to and be paid

over and delivered to the persons, corporations and objects which I

shall in my last will name, select and appoint:

“Now, therefore, I do hereby exercise any and all powers of appointment

contained in and given to me by any such will by any person if any such

will there be, desiring and intending that whether or not I survive the

maker of said will, the persons, corporations and institutions

hereinbefore named shall be benefited in accordance with and to the

extent of the terms of this instrument, either as legatees hereunder in

case of my survival of the maker of said will, or as my appointees

thereunder in case of my predecease.”

HIS EARTHLY HAPPINESS

An old bachelor, on dying, left the whole of his property to three

ladies to whom he had proposed marriage, and who had refused him. The

reason for this bequest, he stated, was that by their refusal, “to them

I owe all my earthly happiness.”

MUST PAY FOR HER DRINKS

Mr. Davis, of Clapham, England, left the sum of 5_s._ “to Mary Davis,

daughter of Peter Delaport, which is sufficient to enable her to get

drunk for the last time at my expense.”

IMAGINARY WIFE AND CHILDREN

A Mr. George, resident of one of the British Colonies, who died

possessed of a large property, contrived to puzzle the brains of his

executors by imagining and inserting in his will two heirs who had no

existence but in his brain. After bequeathing his worldly goods in the

usual form, he named as his residuary legatees a son and daughter, whom

he stated to be his children by a beautiful Circassian he had married at

Plymouth in St. Peter’s Church. He added that, though the lady had

subsequently eloped with a parson, he bore no ill-will to the children,

whom she had taken with her, but should be glad to think they would be

traced and apprised of their good fortune.

The whole romance turned out to be a complete fabrication, but not until

it had severely tried the patience of the executors.

THIS FOOLISH WORLD A DREAM

Harris Bletzer, who died on August 21, 1910, at his home, 35 Moore

Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., worth about $10,000, had pretty definite ideas

as to how he wanted his money to go after his death, and he also had

come to the conclusion that, after all, this was a foolish world and a

dream, so he wrote down in Hebrew his philosophical conclusions and had

it properly attested as his last will and testament. This remarkable

document has been translated for Surrogate Ketcham’s benefit, and it has

been offered for probate.

Mr. Bletzer wants his wife to have all his money for her lifetime, and

she isn’t to be dictated to by anybody, either, as to what she does with

it, the testator says, for she worked for it as hard as her husband did.

But he says that when their two daughters, Sarah and Mazie, get married,

their mother can spend $2000 upon each of them, and it shall be

considered as their share of their father’s estate. After the widow

dies, then the money is to be divided among the sons. The reason for his

opinion of life is given in language not quite grammatical, as follows:

“Lying in my bed, with my weak strength, and figured out with a clear

mind and a clear conscience, man going through his life in this foolish

world; so I have decided, with my full reason, that the entire world is

a dream. The years run by and the day of leave-taking is expected, and I

have decided to declare what shall be done with my little wealth which I

have accumulated by my sweat through my hard work.”

IT PAID TO BE HEAVY

A Scotchman left to each of his daughters her weight in one-pound bank

notes. By this provision, one daughter, being stouter than the other,

received $30,000 more than her sister.

OPPOSED TO MUSTACHES

Mr. Fleming, an upholsterer, of Pimlico, by his will, proved in 1869,

left £10 each to the men in his employ--those who did not wear

mustaches; those who persisted in wearing them to have £5 only.

MUST BE TALL

The county of Yorkshire in England is noted for its tall men, and a

resident of that county left his entire estate to those of his

descendants who were not less than six feet four inches in height.

NEWSPAPER READING PROHIBITED

A Vienna banker made a bequest to his nephew with the stipulation that

“he shall never, on any occasion, read a newspaper, his favorite

occupation.”

A BEAM AND BELL

The will of Reginald atte Pette, of Stockbury, dated 12th of January,

1456, is in part as follows: “Item, I bequeath toward the making of a

new beam in the Church of Stockbury, xiii _s_. iiii _d_.; towards a new

bell called trebyll vi _s_. viii _d_.; towards the work of the new isle

in the aforesaid Church iv marcs; and towards the making of a new window

there xx _s_. Witnesses, John Petytt, Nich. Cowstede, Adomar atte Pette,

Thomas atte Pette, Peter atte Pette, Christopher, Clerk of the Parish

there, Vicar of Stockbury.”

MUST BECOME AN ACTRESS

A maiden lady over fifty years of age, with a strong aversion to all

theatrical amusements, was scandalized by being put down for a legacy in

the will of a facetious friend, who attached the condition that within

six months of the testator’s death the legatee obtain an engagement at a

theatre and must perform there for one whole week.

WILL SUSTAINED, CODICIL REJECTED

A Protestant clergyman, the Reverend John Markhouse, aged 70, bequeathed

£12,000 for the purpose of establishing a school for illegitimate

children only, at Bradchurch, Hants, England. He added a codicil

providing for educational expenses by a further sum of £8000. The

disappointed relatives appealed against the will; but the court,

strangely enough, decided in favor of the will and against the codicil,

on consideration of the plea that towards the close of his life he had

appeared eccentric enough to justify the conclusion that he was not of

sound mind when he wrote the latter. Nevertheless the sequitur seems

logical enough.

MUSIC

An Englishman, Richard Lane, otherwise Tomson, by his will, dated 24th

of July, 1619, gave to one of the deacons of the Cathedral Church of

Hereford 40_s_. yearly forever, to prick fairly into books, songs, and

church service, for the use of the same church; and upon his coming

every half-year for his wages, he should bring with him the sub-chanter

of the choir, who would show to him who had the payment of the money,

what he had done in that business the half-year last past; and if he

should be found negligent therein, then the payment for that time should

be given to twelve poor men the Saturday next following.

REPEAT THE CATECHISM ON CHRISTMAS DAY

Robert Barber, Cambridgeshire, England, by will, dated 21st of June,

1818, gave unto the minister of Haslingfield and the tenant of the farm,

on which Mr. Wallace then lived, £20 in trust, to be placed out at

interest, upon good security, and the interest thereof to be by them

given every year after his decease unto that child under the age of

thirteen years, who should most perfectly repeat the Catechism, on

Christmas Day.

A PLAIN CASE

The will of E. J. Halley was filed for probate in October last at

Memphis, Tennessee. It would seem from attendant circumstances that Mr.

Halley was not a teetotaler, and that prohibition is not entirely

effective in Tennessee.

Mr. Halley was the foster son of a lady known as “Joanna Madden, the

hermit”: contrary to the rule in such matters, this hermit left a large

estate, consisting of gold and silver snugly put away in her home; a

squad of policemen escorted the money to a local bank; this Mr. Halley

received, but he did not live long to enjoy it; but it is reported,

however, that he did enjoy it while he lived. Death came, and by his

will, duly executed, he left the estate to schoolmates, nurses, favorite

baseball players, deputy sheriffs, and a few orphan asylums, for good

measure; with some of the legatees he was not acquainted. Among other

provisions in this highly interesting testament, may be recited the

following:

“To the nurse who kindly removed a pink monkey from the foot of my bed,

$5000.”

“To the cook at the hospital who removed snakes from my broth, $5000.”

The heirs at law reached the conclusion that too high a value had been

put upon these services and temporary friendships, and filed a bill to

enjoin the payment of the legacies.

PENCHANT FOR PAPER-KNIVES

M. Charles Asselineau, a well-known Frenchman, died in 1874. His estate

appears to have consisted largely of books and paper-knives. These he

disposed of by will in a bequest to a relative. He had as many

paper-knives as Clapisson had whistles or Buffon butterflies, and they

were all more or less remarkable by reason of the celebrity of the

donors, or former owners, and the unique inscriptions they bore. Those

who are interested may find amusement, if not recreation, in an attempt

to ascertain the point and meaning of some of the phrases.

On one given him by Victor Hugo we read: “Madame, il fait grand vent et

j’ai tué six loups.”

On that of Ponsard: “Quand la borne est franchie, il n’y a plus de

limites.”

On that of Émile Augier: “Ce qui tombe au fossé, Madame, est au soldat.”

And so on.

In this collection are paper-knives that had belonged to Béranger,

Bauville, Autran, Camille Doucet, and many other French writers of fame,

each carefully enclosed in a case of its own and labelled.

AN ODD LOT

There is a well-authenticated case of a wealthy man leaving his riches

to deserving old maids, but he let his own daughters pine in single

blessedness for want of portions. There was also an individual who

desired to set up a lifeboat, compelling his boys to “paddle their own

canoe,” and there is yet another testator who, when death approached,

bestowed his estate for the planting of a botanical garden, leaving his

daughters to fade as wallflowers, and his sons to go to seed in penury;

and these testamentary schemes were upheld, notwithstanding the adage

that “Charity begins at home.”

A BUTCHER MADE HAPPY

An old Parisian lady residing in the Rue Fontaine St. Georges, left by

will the whole of her fortune to her butcher. Its amount was invested in

rentes, and produced $7500 a year.

The butcher was in no way related to her, did not even know her by

sight, neither had she ever seen him. As the testatrix had no heirs

either direct or collateral, and no relations, the will was not

disputed, and the butcher glided quite comfortably into his new

position.

HE USED “PLAIN ENGLISH”

The last will and testament of Mr. Daniel Martinett, of Calcutta, in the

East Indies.

“In the name of God, I, Daniel Martinett, of the town of Calcutta, being

in perfect mind and memory, though weak of body, make this my last Will

and Testament in manner and form following.... To avoid Latin phrases,

as it is a tongue I am not well versed in, ‘I shall speak in plain

English.’

“First. In the most submissive manner I recommend my soul to Almighty

God, &c.

“Secondly. Now as to worldly concerns, in the following manner:--As to

this fulsome carcase having already seen enough of worldly pomp, I

desire nothing relative to it to be done, only its being stowed away in

my old green chest, to avoid expense; for as I lived profusely, I die

frugally.

“Thirdly. The undertaker’s fees come to nothing, as I won them from him

at a game of billiards, in the presence of Mr. Thomas Morrice and

William Perkes, at the said William Perkes’ house, in February last. I

furthermore request, not only as it is customary, but as I sincerely

believe the prayers of the good availeth, and are truly consistent with

decency, that the Rev. Mr. Henry Butler read the prayers which are

customary at burials, and also preach a sermon on Sunday next after my

decease, taking his text from Solomon, “All is vanity.” In consideration

of which, over and above his fees, I bestow upon him all my hypocrisy,

which he wants as a modern good man; but as my finances are low, and

cannot conveniently discharge his fees, I hope he will please accept the

will for the deed.

“Fourthly. To Henry Vansittart, Esq., Governor of Bengal, as an opulent

man, I leave the discharge of all such sums of money (the whole not

exceeding 300 rupees) that I shall stand indebted to indigent persons in

the town of Calcutta.

“Fifthly. To Mr. George Grey, Secretary to the Presidency, I bequeath

all my sincerity.

“Sixthly. To Mr. Simon Drose, Writer to the Secretary’s office, all my

modesty.

“Seventhly. To Mr. Henry Higgenson, also of the Secretary’s office, all

the thoughts I hope I shall die possessed of.

“Eighthly. To Mr. Thomas Forbes, all the worldly assurance which I had

when I had taken a cheerful glass, though in fact a doleful cup.

“Ninthly. My wearing apparel, furniture, books, and everything else I

die possessed of, I bequeath to them who stand most in need of them,

leaving it to the discretion of my executor, Mr. Edward Gulston,

excepting the things after mentioned:--Unto Capt. Edward Menzies, late

commander of the ship _Hibernia_, I give my sea quadrant, invented by

Hadley, and made by Howell, in the Strand; likewise my two-feet Gunter’s

scale. These I give him because I believe he knows the use of them

better than any commander out of this port.

“My silver watch and buckles I give to Mr. Edward Gulston, in lieu of

his sincere friendship to me during our acquaintance; and these I hope

he will not part with, unless his necessities require it, which I

sincerely hope will never be the case.

“Also to Mr. Thomas Forbes I give my gold ring with a blue stone set

therein, which he may exchange for a mourning one if he pleases.

“I give my Bible and Prayer-book to the Rev. Mr. Henry Butler.

“My sword, with a cut-and-thrust blade, I give to Capt. Ransulie Knox,

as I verily believe he not only knows how, but has courage to use it,

and I hope only in a good cause.

“As I have lived the make-game of a modern gentleman, being a butt for

envy and a mark for malice, by acting a little out of the common road,

though, thank God, never in a base way, I hope I may die in sincere love

and charity to all men, forgiving all my persecutors, as I hope for

forgiveness from my Creator.

“As it lies not in my power to bequeath anything to my relations at

home, I shall say nothing concerning them, as they have not for these

six years past concerned themselves about me; excepting that I heartily

wish them all well, and that my brothers and sisters may make a more

prosperous voyage through this life than I have done.

“(Signed) DANIEL MARTINETT.”

* * * * *

This original and singular will was deposited in the Registry Office at

Calcutta, Bengal, after the death of the testator, which took place in

1825: the governor of Bengal generously accepted the equivocal legacy of

debts and paid them. Mr. Martinett was an officer of the well-known East

India Company.

HAD A CLAMOROUS TONGUE

Mr. Lewis Evan Morgan, an old Welsh gentleman, died at Gwyllgyth, in

Glamorganshire, in the ninety-eighth year of his age. His will is neatly

comprised in few words very much to the purpose: “I give to my old

faithful servant, Ester Jones, the whole that I am possessed of either

in personal property, land, or otherwise. She is a tolerable good woman,

but would be much better if she had not so clamorous a tongue. She has,

however, one great virtue, which is a veil to all her foibles--strict

honesty.”

HATED LAWYERS

General Hawley, who drew up his own will “because of the hatred and

suspicion with which I regard all lawyers,” left “£100 to my servant

Elizabeth Buskett because she has proved herself a useful and agreeable

handmaid.” The rest of his belongings he bequeathed to his adopted son,

but provided that, if he should be foolish enough to marry the said

Elizabeth, neither was to inherit a farthing.

He desired his executors to consign his “carcase” to any place they

pleased, and if the parish priest should claim a burial fee, they were

to “let the puppy have it.”

A PEDLER AND HIS DOG

In the window at the west end of the nave at St. Mary’s, Lambeth, in

London, may be seen a singular group representing a pedler with a pack

on his back followed by a dog. Its age is not known, but it was there at

the end of the sixteenth century. It is connected with a piece of land

called Pedler’s Acre, anciently known as Church Hopys, which is entered

in the parish register as bequeathed by a person unknown. A tradition

preserved in the locality states that this isthmus was given to the

parish to hold as long as the representation of himself and his dog was

preserved in the church window.

HIS BROTHERS, WASHINGTON AND BONAPARTE

A resident of an Eastern State, who died recently, reflects in his will

that he was shunned by his relatives, “who cannot, now that I am dying,

do too much for my comfort.” But the testator, one Dr. Wagner, takes on

these relations a ghastly revenge. To his brother, Napoleon Bonaparte,

he bequeathed his left arm and hand; to another brother, George

Washington, his right arm and hand; and to others his legs, nose, ears,

etc. Further, the testator leaves a thousand dollars for the

dismembering of his body.

WILL WRITTEN ON A DOOR

An eccentric testator, having been told that so long as the proper

formalities required by the law of wills were complied with it was

immaterial whether the said will were written on paper, parchment,

canvas, or wood, elected to write his on his door. The executors had

therefore no choice but to have the door unscrewed from its hinges and

carried into court for probate before it could be administered. The

author has not been able to locate the court in which this rather

weighty will was probated, but its existence is well authenticated.

ON A CARD TORN FROM A FREIGHT CAR

A strange document was recently filed as a will in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania. Robert J. McElroy, after being fatally injured by a

freight train, scribbled on a card torn from a freight car: “Mary, all

that is mine is thine.” The will left an estate of $5200 to his wife.

After writing the will, McElroy signed the letter “R,” but was unable to

finish, and other trainmen completed the signature. McElroy died on June

12, 1910.

HIS WILL ON WRAPPING-PAPER

Joseph Dwyer of Weymouth, Massachusetts, died in October, 1910. His will

was probated in the Norfolk County Court at Dedham. This will was

unusual in that it was written on a piece of grocer’s brown

wrapping-paper. Under it he gave to his wife an estate valued at

$50,000. The will was held to be valid.

WILL ON A COLLAR BOX

Nicholas Zimmer was a passenger on the steamer, _Kaiser Wilhelm der

Grosse_, on a voyage from a European port to the United States, in

October, 1910.

In mid-ocean, he mysteriously disappeared and undoubtedly jumped

overboard. He was last seen on October 1, 1910, and his non-appearance

at meals the following day led to a search of his cabin. Under a steamer

rug was found a collar box, on the lid of which was written his last

will and testament. A search of his papers disclosed that he was sixty

years of age and an American.

During the voyage, he had spoken to many of his fellow-passengers, and

had made friends with some of the stewards. He had in no wise acted

strangely.

The will written on the lid of the collar box bequeathed seven hundred

dollars in cash and ten thousand dollars in securities to his wife. This

amount of cash, and the securities, were found in the box. When the

steamer reached her dock, the government officials boarded the vessel,

received the box and forwarded it to Mrs. Zimmer.

THREE-WORD WILL INVALID

Recently, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia rejected the will of

the late George T. Smith, of Richmond, which was composed of three

words, “Everything is Lou’s,” in the suit of Samuel H. Smith, appellant,

against Loula G. Smith.

These three words were written on a page of a book issued by the

Southern Railroad Company to its employees for keeping records on

trains.

The court held that such an instrument was not entitled to probate.

MAN MUST DRESS IN FEMALE ATTIRE

Money is so generally welcome that it is hardly conceivable that a

legacy in cash would ever be refused. Occasionally, however, as a result

of the absurdity or harshness of the conditions attached to legacies,

substantial bequests of this kind have been declined. An Englishman

refused a legacy of two hundred pounds because it was stipulated that

before receiving it he must walk down the most important street of a

fashionable summer resort (Brighton) “dressed in female attire.”

A LION SERMON

Sir John Gayer, a citizen of London, and lord mayor upwards of 200 years

ago, left by will some money to provide for a sermon, which is preached

at the Church of St. Katharine Cree, Leadenhall Street, every October,

in commemoration of his being saved from a lion on the coast of Africa,

in answer to prayer.

WHAT’S IN A NAME

A gentleman named Furstone of Alton Hampshire, England, about to make

his will, and having no family, left seven thousand pounds to any man

legitimately bearing the name of Furstone, who should discover and marry

a female Furstone. If the marriage should result in children, the sum

was to descend to the male offspring, if any, or to any child or

children of the opposite sex who should, after marriage, retain the

name.

WOULD NOT SPEAK TO THE LEGATEE

In 1772, John Edmunds, Esq., of Monmouth, England, bequeathed a fortune

of upwards of twenty thousand pounds to one Mills, a day laborer,

residing near Monmouth. Mr. Edmunds, who had so handsomely provided for

this man, would not speak to or see him while he lived.

ONLY OUR SAVIOUR COULD DEMAND IT

Recently a cynical old man in a Western town died, who in his will

devised all his property to that man in the community who could prove

that he was a Christian. Then a definition of a Christian was given,

which would exclude every one who had lived on earth, except the Saviour

himself: the will was promptly set aside and the property given to the

legal heirs.

TO THROW DICE FOR BIBLES

A dissenting minister bequeathed a sum of money to his chapel at St.

Ives, to provide “six Bibles every year, for which six men and six women

are to throw dice on Whit Tuesday after the morning service, the

minister kneeling the while at the south end of the communion table, and

praying God to direct the luck to His glory.”

TO A HERO OR HIS MISTRESSES

A somewhat puzzling task devolved upon a real or imaginary body of men

in Pennsylvania. A Mr. Smith Willie, in 1880, appointed as executors of

his extraordinary will, a jury of honor consisting of all the

householders in his native town, who could prove that they came honestly

by their fortunes, each to receive for his trouble the sum of two

hundred dollars. He computed that there could not be above twenty, and

doubted whether that number would be reached.

The will itself is thus indited:

“Seeing that I have no direct descendants, and that I am wholly

unacquainted with those I may possess collaterally, I bequeath my

fortune to any one among them who, in the course of a twelve-month from

the date of my death, may distinguish himself by an act of heroism

worthy of ancient times.

“In case none of my collateral descendants should be justified in making

this claim, I then leave all I possess to be divided between all the

women who can prove that they have been my mistresses, be it for ever so

brief a period.”

IMPOSED ON THE NUNS

A sick traveller once presented himself at the hospital of Auxerre, in

France, where he was received and treated with the care and attention

bestowed on all the sick who seek an asylum there. He expressed his

gratitude for the kindness shown him, and his intention of testifying it

in a more substantial manner, begging the nuns to let him see a notary.

This functionary having obeyed his summons, he informed him that, as an

old soldier, he was in the enjoyment of a retiring-pension, and, having

earned a medal, of a further allowance; that, in addition to this

income, he owned a mortgage worth four thousand five hundred francs, of

which the title, as well as his other papers, was deposited with the

notary of the commune of the Département du Seine et Marne, where he had

a settlement. Upon this he dictated to him a will, by which he

bequeathed everything to the hospital, upon the sole condition that they

should give him a decent and honorable burial.

At this time he appeared to be recovering, but suddenly his state became

worse, and on the following day he died.

To fulfil the promise exacted from them, the administrators of the

hospital, instead of supplying the simple funeral ordinarily accorded to

the paupers who died there, responded liberally to the behest of their

generous benefactor, and accompanied his interment with every mark of

respect, after which they went to the office indicated to claim the

inheritance bestowed on them. But here a new feature appeared in the

case. The mayor and the notary of the parish indicated, expressed

themselves entirely ignorant whether of the papers in question or of the

singular testator, and on further inquiry they discovered him to be no

more than a wretched cowherd, bearing in his neighborhood a very

suspicious character. What his motive could have been in practising this

deception in his dying moments it is difficult to guess, and his conduct

remains an instance of one of those crookednesses of the human mind we

often meet with, but do not understand.

LEAVES ESTATE TO JESUS

One of the most unique wills ever recorded, was filed recently in

Worcester, Massachusetts. The testator, Charles Hastings, leaves several

garden lots and buildings, valued at fifty thousand dollars, to the Lord

Jesus, with the explanation that He is the rightful owner of all lands,

according to the Bible, the first book of Laws.

The instrument is an odd mixture of a deed and a will, and was drawn

twenty-five years ago. According to the probate records, the instrument

was given in consideration of the love and goodwill of the Lord and one

cent found in one of the buildings conveyed.

There was a reservation in the instrument, giving the grantor the right

to use the lands for life, and to improve and repair the houses and to

pay taxes and insurance.

It may be safely surmised that the title to this property will vest in

the heirs of the testator.

Mr. Hastings was a resident of Ashburnham and a well-known citizen.

A SPIRIT WILL

A spirit will was rejected in Washington, D.C., on August 12th, 1910, by

Justice Barnard of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Mrs. Elida J. G. Crowell, widow of William H. Crowell, a clerk in the

Treasury Department, applied to the court for the appointment of the

deceased’s brother as administrator of his estate and offered in

evidence what purported to be a translation of an illegible message,

which Crowell scribbled while on his deathbed, favoring his brother’s

appointment.

The court was unable to decipher the scrawl, but Mrs. Crowell said a

“translation” had been made for her by a “slate-writing medium.” The

“translation” in part read:

“Dear Elida,--

“This is what I tried to write on a slip of paper: ‘I want my brother,

W. H. H. Crowell, Washington, U. S. A., if I should pass away with my

sickness. I have perfect trust in him. I believe he will deal honestly

with my children. I have set aside $5000 for the exclusive use of my

wife. Give little Elizabeth and brother both $100 to put in the Savings

Bank.’ Ruby met me. I have seen many folk here. This is a beautiful

world. Is better than the Sixth Auditor’s office. They can’t put me out

here.

“W. H. CROWELL.

“Date, June 7, 1910.”

MYSTERY OF A LITTLE TRUNK

On September 1st, 1910, Adolph Steinberg, an old German cobbler, died in

Brooklyn, New York, at 36 Snyder Avenue. For a quarter of a century he

had half-soled and mended shoes for those who lived in that section of

the city. Mayor Gaynor was one of his customers, and many other

prominent men used to go to his little shop to have their shoes

repaired.

There always lay close to Steinberg’s feet, as he stitched away, a

little metal trunk that was never out of his sight a moment during the

day. It was never open, and no one ever caught a glimpse of its

contents. At night it was placed under Steinberg’s bed, and in the

morning he would pull it out and drag it over to his bench.

Steinberg’s solicitude for the trunk finally caused comment among his

customers, and the report got out that the old cobbler kept his money

and valuables there, and that a snug fortune was locked up in the little

box. It was known that Steinberg was well to do, and for many years he

used to lend out money to people who were temporarily out of funds. In

such cases, he would get them to leave a watch or some other article of

value as security. When they called to repay, Steinberg would return

their valuables, charging them no interest for the money loaned.

In the course of many years, Steinberg accumulated quite a collection of

watches and trinkets, because many of those to whom he lent money never

came back to claim their valuables. So the collection grew and grew.

By his will Steinberg directed that the trunk be not opened until thirty

days after his death. His wife and children respected his wish, and much

to their satisfaction found it contained securities and other property

of considerable value, an accumulation of many years.

DOLLY VARDEN GARTERS AND OTHER MATTERS

The following are extracts from some recent English wills: Thomas Blyth,

after directing that no person was to wear mourning for him out of his

money, goes on to say: “But I cannot forget the kindness of the ladies

who have promised to wear Dolly Varden garters of black and white as a

mark of respect for my memory.” William Hampton, after leaving to his

son Lawrie’s “Interest Tables,” says he does so, “not from its intrinsic

value, but from the hope that so small an incident may be of use to him

in future years. And I particularly recommend to him the study of the

compound interest tables, as showing that from comparatively small

investments, by patience, large sums may be realized.” James Brown

evidently believed in every man voting according to his own political

convictions, for after leaving to a nephew two cottages, “for which he

is to get his vote on,” adds, “and to vote the way which he likes best.”

William Farren’s statement as to the character of Cambridge

undergraduates is, we hope and believe, unfounded: he hopes by his

disposition of his property, “to save his family from keeping or living

in an undergraduate lodging-house, as undergraduates are more like

wolves and dogs than human beings.”

OSTENTATION

Matthew Wall of Braughing, Hertfordshire, England, by will, in 1595,

charged all his lands and tenements in the parish of Braughing with the

yearly payment of twenty shillings, to be distributed by the minister

and churchwardens on St. Matthew’s Day, in the following manner:

To the sexton, to make up his grave yearly, and to ring the bell, 1_s_.

10_d_. To twenty boys, between the age of six and sixteen, twenty

groats. To ten aged and impotent people of the parish, ten threepences.

To sweep the path from his house to the church-gate every year, 1_s_. To

the crier of Stortford, to make proclamation yearly, on Ascension and

Michaelmas Day, that he left his estate to a Matthew, or William Wall,

as long as the world should endure, 8_d_. To the parish clerk at

Hallingbury for the same, 8_d_., and to the minister and churchwardens,

to see his will performed, 5_s_.

POWDER PLOT AND SPANISH ARMADA

Robert Wilcox, of Alcester, Warwickshire, England, by will, dated 24th

of December, 1627, gave a house and grounds to the town of Alcester, for

the maintenance of three sermons in the year, viz.:

“One upon the 5th of November, in remembrance of our happy deliverance,

with our king, nobles and states, from the pestilent design of the

Papists in the Powder Plot; one on the 17th of November, in remembrance

of that good Queen Elizabeth, her entrance unto the Crown; and the third

upon the last day of July, in remembrance of the Lord’s gracious

deliverance from the Spanish Armada, in ’88.”

And whereas the rent was 20_s_. by the year then, and the good-wife,

Lilly, having her life in it, after her decease no doubt the house and

close would be worth 30_s_. by the year; then his will was that the said

overplus should be given to the poor every year, as the rent should come

in, forever.

MORE GENEROUS THAN POLITE

The will of Edward Wortley Montagu, son of Mr. Montagu, Ambassador to

Constantinople in 1716, by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, his wife, the

supposed “Sappho” of Pope, is more than singular. After some bequest “to

my noble and worthy relation, the Earl of ----,” he adds, “I do not give

his lordship any further part of my property because the best part of

that he has contrived to take already. Item, to Sir Francis ---- I give

one word of mine, because he has never had the good fortune to keep his

own. Item, to Lord M---- I give nothing, because I know he’ll bestow it

on the poor. Item, to ---- the author, for putting me in his travels, I

give five shillings for his wit, undeterred by the charge of

extravagance, since friends who have read his book consider five

shillings too much. Item, to Sir Robert W---- I leave my political

opinions, never doubting he can well turn them into cash, who has always

found such an excellent market in which to change his own. Item, my

cast-off habit of swearing oaths I give to Sir Leopold D----, in

consideration that no oaths have ever been able to find him yet.”

From some quarrel with his family he advertised for some widow or single

lady of good manners likely to bring him an heir in ---- months. This

treasure to his arms his valet brought by his desire to meet him at

Venice, from England; but as the ship of Wortley Montagu was entering

the Venetian lagunes, to wed the chaste bride on the following day, the

eager and expectant bridegroom swallowed too hastily a chicken bone,

which, sticking in his throat, suffocated him in a few minutes.

TO ENCOURAGE MATRIMONY AND HORSE-RACING

By a deed, dated 12th of August, 1801, executed in pursuance of a decree

in Chancery, relative to the will of John Perram of New Market, England,

dated 30th of May, 1772, the trustees of a sum of £410 6_s_. 2_d_. Three

Per Cent Consols and £21 Bank Long Annuities, being the original sum

given by the will, together with such accumulations thereon which had

accrued during the proceedings in Chancery, were declared; to hold them

upon trust, six weeks at least before Easter, to cause notice to be

given, as therein directed, that a marriage portion of £21 would be

given to a parishioner of the said parish, who should, on Thursday in

the Easter week, be married at the church to a woman belonging to it;

neither party to be under twenty, nor to exceed twenty-five years of

age, nor be worth £20; the trustees to attend in the vestry to receive

claims, and pay the bequest to such couples as should be qualified to

receive it. In case of two claims, the determination to be by ballot who

should receive it. In case of no claimants, then the money, for that

year only, to be paid by the trustees to the winner of the next town

horse-race; the race course at New Market is four miles long and is

regarded the finest in the world.

BEQUESTS OF THE HUMAN BRAIN

Both in France and the United States there exist medical societies which

make a special study of the human brain. In the United States a regular

blank form of testamentary bequest has been formulated, and the brains

of a number of prominent persons, particularly those of doctors, have

passed under its provisions; a form used is here given:

“I, ----, of ----, recognizing the need of studying the brains of educated

and orderly persons rather than those of the ignorant, criminal or

insane, in order to determine their weight, form, and fissural patterns,

the correlations with bodily and mental powers of various kinds and

degrees, and the influences of sex, age and inheritance, hereby declare

my wish, that at my death, my brain shall be entrusted to the Cornell

Brain Association, or to the Curator of the Collection of human brains,

in the Museum of Cornell University, for scientific uses, and for

preservation, as a whole or in part, as may be thought best. If my near

relatives, by blood or marriage, object seriously to the fulfilment of

this bequest, it shall be void. I earnestly hope that they may interpose

neither objection nor obstacle.

“----.

Date ----

Witnesses:

----

----”

Medical works state that college professors are among the individuals

best adapted to subserve the purposes indicated, by reason of their

sharply defined capacities and attainments; lawyers, doctors and

preachers seem to come next in favor.

It will be recalled that the late Florence Nightingale by will left her

body for dissection and the cause of medical science.

MUST SETTLE DISPUTES

Mrs. Susan M. Corning died recently at Rockaway Beach, New York, leaving

an estate valued at several thousand dollars. By an unusual clause in

her will she appointed an arbitration committee to pass upon any dispute

which might arise in the distribution of her estate. The clause reads:

“It is my express will and wish and I hereby order and direct that if

any differences shall arise concerning any gift, bequest or other thing

in this will, no suit shall be brought over the same, but the said

difference shall be referred wholly to George Bennett, Louis Kreusher

and Albert Meisel, all of Rockaway Beach, and what they order and direct

shall be binding and conclusive to all persons concerned.”

There seems some reason to question the legality of such a provision.

LONG ON TROUSERS

A New Yorker dying in 1880 supposed to be sane, left this will:

“I bequeath all my fortune to my nephews and nieces, seven in number.

“They are to share it equally, and on no account to go to law about it,

on pain of forfeiting their respective shares.

“I own seventy-one pairs of trousers, and I strictly enjoin my executors

to hold a public sale at which these shall be sold to the highest

bidder, and the proceeds distributed to the poor of the city.

“I desire that these garments shall in no way be examined or meddled

with, but be disposed of as they are found at the time of my death; and

no one purchaser is to buy more than one pair.”

As the testator had always been more or less eccentric in his ways, no

one was much surprised at these singular clauses, which were religiously

observed. The sale was held, and the seventy-one pairs of trousers were

sold to seventy-one different purchasers. One of these, in examining the

pockets, discovered in the fob a packet of some sort, closely sewn up.

He lost no time in cutting the thread, and was not a little surprised to

find a bundle of bank-notes representing a thousand dollars. The news

soon spread, and each of the others found himself possessed of a similar

amount.

As may be supposed, all were well satisfied except the heirs, who could

not find redress in law, this recourse being prohibited.

COMPLICATION OVER HORSES

In a celebrated case, frequently quoted, the testator bequeathed to the

plaintiff, “all my black and white horses.” Now the testator had six

black horses, six white horses and six pied horses, and the question was

whether the pied horses passed under the terms of the bequest. After

elaborate argument, judgment was given for the plaintiff, and then it

was moved in arrest of judgment that the pied horses were mares.

MUST MARRY “ANTON” OR “ANTONIE”

An eccentric Frenchman left his estate to his six nephews and six nieces

on the condition that “every one of my nephews marries a woman named

Antonie and that every one of my nieces marries a man named Anton.” They

were further required to give the Christian name Antonie or Anton to

every first-born child according to the sex. The marriage of each nephew

was to be celebrated on one of the St. Anthony’s Days, either January

17th, May 10th, or June 13th, and if, in any instance, this last

provision was not complied with before July, 1896, one-half of the

legacy was in that case to be forfeited.

MUST SING ANTHEMS

Elizabeth Townsend of Westbury, Wilts, England, widow, by her will,

dated 11th of June, 1820, gave unto the churchwardens and overseers of

the parish of Westbury as much money as should be sufficient, when

invested in the stocks, to yield the yearly sum of £3 clear of all

deductions, upon trust to pay the dividends thereof unto the vicar,

organist, parish clerk, and choir of the parish church of Westbury, for

the time being, upon special condition that the said choir should

forever thereafter, in the morning and afternoon service, at the parish

church, on the Sunday preceding the 24th of June in each year, sing the

anthem composed by her late husband’s grandfather, Roger Townsend, from

the 150th Psalm, and also the 112th Psalm, for which the vicar was to

have 4_s_., the organist 10_s_., the clerk 5_s_., and 4_s_. apiece to

the choir singers, viz., two counter, two tenor, three treble, and three

bass singers, and in default of their singing, then to divide such £3

amongst the poor at Christmas.

The same person made a similar bequest to the choir of the parish church

of Warminster, Wilts.

WILL OF DR. DUNLOP

The humorous will of Dr. Dunlop of Upper Canada is worth recording,

though there is a spice of malice in every bequest it contains.

To his five sisters he left the following bequests:

“To my eldest sister Joan, my five-acre field, to console her for being

married to a man she is obliged to henpeck.

“To my second sister Sally, the cottage that stands beyond the said

field with its garden, because as no one is likely to marry her it will

be large enough to lodge her.

“To my third sister Kate, the family Bible, recommending her to learn as

much of its spirit as she already knows of its letter, that she may

become a better Christian.

“To my fourth sister Mary, my grandmother’s silver snuff-box, that she

may not be ashamed to take snuff before company.

“To my fifth sister, Lydia, my silver drinking-cup, for reasons known to

herself.

“To my brother Ben, my books, that he may learn to read with them.

“To my brother James, my big silver watch, that he may know the hour at

which men ought to rise from their beds.

“To my brother-in-law Jack, a punch-bowl, because he will do credit to

it.

“To my brother-in-law Christopher, my best pipe, out of gratitude that

he married my sister Maggie whom no man of taste would have taken.

“To my friend John Caddell, a silver teapot, that, being afflicted with

a slatternly wife, he may therefrom drink tea to his comfort.”

While “old John’s” eldest son was made legatee of a silver tankard,

which the testator objected to leave to old John himself, lest he should

commit the sacrilege of melting it down to make temperance medals.

VANITY FOLLOWS US TO THE GRAVE

John Troutbeck of Dacre, Cumberland, England, by will, dated 27th of

October, 1787, gave to the poor of Dacre, the place of his nativity,

£200, the interest thereof to be distributed every Easter Sunday on the

family tombstone in Dacre churchyard, provided the day should be fine,

by the hands and at the discretion of a Troutbeck of Blencowe, if there

should be any living, those next in descent having prior right of

distribution; and if none should be living that would distribute the

same, then by a Troutbeck, as long as one could be found that would take

the trouble of it; otherwise by the minister and churchwardens of the

parish for the time being; that not less than five shillings should be

given to any individual, and that none should be considered entitled to

it that received alms, or any support from the parish.

TEMPERANCE AND EARLY RISING ENJOINED

In the will of the late Mr. J. Sargeant, of Leicester, England, who died

some forty years ago, is the following clause: “As my nephews are fond

of indulging themselves in bed in the morning, and as I wish them to

prove to the satisfaction of my executors that they have got out of bed

in the morning, and either employed themselves in business or taken

exercise in the open air, from five to eight o’clock every morning from

the fifth of April to the 10th of October, being three hours every day,

and from seven to nine o’clock in the morning from the 10th of October

to the 5th of April, being two hours every morning; this is to be done

for some years, during the first seven years to the satisfaction of my

executors, who may excuse them in case of illness, but the task must be

made up when they are well, and if they will not do this, they shall not

receive any share of my property. Temperance makes the faculties clear,

and exercise makes them vigorous. It is temperance and exercise that can

alone ensure the fittest state for mental or bodily exertion.”

PICTURE OF A VIPER AS A BEQUEST

The following is an extract from the will of John Hylett Stow, proved in

1781:

“I hereby direct my executors to lay out five guineas in the purchase of

a picture of the viper biting the benevolent hand of the person who

saved him from perishing in the snow, if the same can be bought for the

money; and that they do, in memory of me, present it to ----, Esq., a

king’s counsel, whereby he may have frequent opportunities of

contemplating it, and, by a comparison between that and his own virtue,

be able to form a certain judgment which is best and most profitable, a

grateful remembrance of past friendship and almost parental regard, or

ingratitude and insolence. This I direct to be presented to him in lieu

of a legacy of three thousand pounds I had by a former will, now revoked

and burned, left him.”

This will provoked a suit for libel, a proceeding not altogether

unknown, for defamation contained in a testamentary document, though

such proceedings are rare. Mr. John Marshall Gest of Philadelphia refers

to this clause in his excellent address on “Practical Suggestions for

Writing Wills.” It is also to be found in the “Curiosities of the Search

Room,” an English work of the highest merit.

NO CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

_Grates v. Fraser._ This was a suit for the administration of the estate

of the late Dr. Fraser, of Hampstead, England, who left a large amount

of property to be distributed among various charities. The will,

probated in 1878, contained several very singular clauses, one of which

was to this effect: That he had previously left ten thousand pounds to

the Senatus Academicus of the University of Edinburgh, for the purpose

of founding certain bursaries connected with the medical profession, but

having learnt that the horrible and atrocious practice prevailed there

of performing unspeakably cruel operations and experiments on living

animals, he now by his will cancelled the bequest, and desired to

benefit the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to a

similar extent, since he could not reconcile it with his feelings to

encourage, however remotely, the barbarous practice of vivisection. The

testator also directed that his funeral should be conducted with as

little parade as possible, without cloaks, hatbands, or scarfs, and that

no feathers, wands, or other absurdities should be used on the occasion,

and that the ridiculous display of hired mourners, mutes, or attendants,

be dispensed with. Most sensible people, he continued, condemn the above

useless customs, but nevertheless, from vanity or in blind obedience to

antiquated usages, perpetuate and encourage them. He then directed his

body to be buried in any cemetery, without reference to its being what

was called “consecrated” or “unconsecrated” ground, or whether any

service should be repeated at the grave or not, as these were matters

about which he was utterly indifferent; they could avail him nothing,

but might, if the weather were cold, cause the health of some friend to

suffer.

WHISKEY TO EXTERMINATE THE IRISH

An English gentleman, who had from his earliest years been educated with

the most violent prejudices against the Irish, came, when advanced in

life, to inherit a considerable property in the county of Tipperary, but

under the express condition that he should reside on the land. To this

decree he very reluctantly conformed, but his feelings towards the

natives only grew more bitter in consequence.

At his death some years after, on the 17th of March, 1791, his executors

were extremely surprised on opening his will to find the following

dispositions:

“I give and bequeath the annual sum of ten pounds, to be paid in

perpetuity out of my estate, to the following purpose. It is my will and

pleasure that this sum shall be spent in the purchase of a certain

quantity of the liquor vulgarly called whisky, and it shall be publicly

given out that a certain number of persons, Irish only, not to exceed

twenty, who may choose to assemble in the cemetery in which I shall be

interred, on the anniversary of my death, shall have the same

distributed to them. Further, it is my desire that each shall receive it

by half-a-pint at a time till the whole is consumed, each being likewise

provided with a stout oaken stick and a knife, and that they shall drink

it all on the spot. Knowing what I know of the Irish character, my

conviction is, that with these materials given, they will not fail to

destroy each other, and when in the course of time the race comes to be

exterminated, this neighbourhood at least may, perhaps, be colonized by

civilized and respectable Englishmen.”

MUST WAIT ONE HUNDRED YEARS

A very curious will was that of a Polish landlord, M. Zalesky, who died

in 1889, leaving property valued at one hundred thousand roubles. His

will was enclosed in an envelope bearing the words: “To be opened after

my death.” Inside there was another envelope, “To be opened six weeks

after my death.” When this time had passed, the second envelope was

opened, and a third uncovered, “To be opened one year after my death.”

At the end of the year, a fourth envelope was discovered, to be opened

two years after the testator’s death; and so the game went on until

1894, when the actual will was discovered and read. The contents of this

will were quite as eccentric as the directions attached to its opening.

The testator bequeathed half his fortune to such of his heirs as had the

largest number of children. The rest of the property was to be placed in

bank, and a hundred years after his death to be divided, with the

accumulated interest, among the will-maker’s descendants.

WILL OF AN IRISH MISER

An Irishman named Dennis Tolam, who died at Cork possessed of

considerable wealth, in the year 1769, left a singular will, containing

the following testamentary dispositions: “I leave to my sister-in-law

four old stockings, which will be found under my mattress, to the right.

Item: To my nephew, Michael Tarles, two odd socks and a green nightcap.

Item: To Lieutenant John Stein, a blue stocking, with my red cloak.

Item: To my cousin, Barbara Dolan, an old boot, with a red flannel

pocket. Item: To Hannah, my housekeeper, my broken water-jug.” After the

death of the testator, the legatees having been convened by the notary

to be present at the reading of the will, each, as he or she was named,

shrugged their shoulders and otherwise expressed a contemptuous

disappointment, while parties uninterested in the succession could not

refrain from laughing at these ridiculous, not to say insulting,

legacies. All were leaving the room, after signifying their intention of

renouncing their bequests, when the last-named, Hannah, having testified

her indignation by kicking away the broken pitcher, a number of coins

rolled out of it; the other individuals, astonished at the unexpected

incident, began to think better of their determination, and requested

permission to examine the articles given to them. It is needless to say

that, on proceeding to the search, the stockings, socks, pocket, etc.,

soon betrayed by their weight the value of their contents; and the hoard

of the testator, thus fairly distributed, left on the minds of the

legatees a very different impression of his _worth_.

MUST NOT MARRY A DOMESTIC SERVANT

A curious and peculiarly hard case came before a Vice-Chancellor in

London in 1880. The facts are as follows: A Miss Turner devised a large

amount of real estate to her father for life, and then to her brother on

these conditions: “But if my brother shall marry during my life without

my consent in writing, or if he shall already have married, or hereafter

shall marry, a domestic servant,” then such bequest to her brother was

to be void. It appears the brother came into possession of the estate

and died in 1898, leaving a widow and two children. Suit was instituted

against the widow and children on the ground that the testatrix’s

brother had forfeited his title to the legacy by marrying a domestic

servant. It was contended on behalf of the widow that she had been a

housekeeper, and not a domestic servant. The Vice-Chancellor, however,

was of the opinion that a housekeeper was a domestic servant, and thus

the legacy was forfeited.

TO SING IN OPERA

Stanislas Poltzmarz, a Hungarian, possessed of considerable wealth, and

residing at Pesth, died about 1835, bequeathing the larger part of his

fortune, consisting of three million florins, to a notary named Lotz,

but stipulated that before claiming it he should engage himself at the

Scala at Milan, to perform in the operas of “Otello” and “La

Sonnambula.” The testator, who was eighty years of age, deprecates being

considered in his dotage, and takes the trouble to explain that, having

some few years before met the said Lotz at an evening party, where he

had sung fragments of the parts of Elvino and Otello, he had admired the

beauty of his tenor voice, and predicted that it only depended on

himself to become the favorite of the whole musical world. “If,

therefore,” he concludes, “I am right, he will thank me, and so will all

_dilettanti_, for my acumen; if, on the other hand, he should fail, he

will have money enough to compensate for the hisses he may incur.”

HAIR OF THE PROPHET’S BEARD

“The Prophet’s Beard Case,” which created a sensation among the

followers of the Prophet at Madras, was called on for final disposal

before Mr. Justice Innes, Acting Chief Justice, in August, 1879. The

subject of dispute was a hair of the Prophet’s beard, which is enclosed

in a case and is called the “Aussaree Shareef,” or sacred relic, and in

connection with which the Government allows a monthly pension of Rs.

47-14-4, obtained from funds left by a late Nabob for the purpose of

carrying out ceremonies in connection with the sacred relic. There were,

when the case was first instituted, no less than six claimants, two by

right of a will, the others claiming it in succession from generations.

Two of the claimants and the plaintiff withdrew from the suit, leaving

only four to establish their rights to the sacred heirloom. His

lordship, in a lengthy judgment, decided that the first, third, and

fourth defendants were entitled to the sacred relic; but as the first

defendant was a woman she could not hold office in connection with it,

and as No. 3 was the elder brother of No. 4, he directed that he should

hold the “Aussaree Shareef,” and perform all ceremonies in connection

with it, making three equal shares of whatever remained from the

allowance after their performance.

JOKE ON HIS FRIENDS

Mr. Arbirlot, a Scotch gentleman, left extremely handsome legacies to a

number of his friends. The lawyer who wrote down his wishes, looked up

from time to time to ascertain whether his client could be in earnest;

at last he could not refrain from asking him whether he was sure his

assets would cover all these bequests. At this the humorous testator

burst out laughing, admitting that of course they wouldn’t, only he

didn’t like to go out of the world without leaving the expression of his

regard for these legatees, by showing what he _would_ have done for them

if he had _had_ the means. No doubt the intention was a benevolent one;

but we doubt whether the joke was one calculated to be received in a

spirit of affectionate gratitude, especially by the executors, whose

equanimity would have been put to a severe test had the puzzle not been

explained before the testator’s death.

A REMARKABLE ANNUITY

A county newspaper some years ago recorded the death of a Major Hook,

and spoke of him as “a singular character.” “He died,” says the report,

“on Monday sennight, at his house, Ham Street, Ham Common. He was an

officer in the East India Company’s service, and reached the age of

seventy-five. His house was remarkable for its dingy and dilapidated

condition.”

His wife had become entitled to a life annuity, bequeathed to her in

these ambiguous terms: “And the same shall be paid to her as long as she

is above ground.” When, therefore, the good lady died, her husband very

naturally objected to forfeit this income by putting her _below_ ground;

and ingeniously devised a mode of keeping her in a room which he

allotted “to her sole and separate use,” placing a glass-case over her

remains. For thirty years he thus prolonged his enjoyment, if not of

his wife’s society, at least of her income.

TO HELP YOUNG NEWSPAPER MEN

William J. Haskett, a lawyer, who died in New York in 1890, left a will

containing this curiously worded clause: “I am informed that there is a

society composed of young men connected with the public press; and as in

early life I was connected with the papers, I have a keen recollection

of the toils and troubles that bubbled then and ever will bubble for the

toilers of the world in their pottage caldron; and as I desire to

thicken with a little savory herb their thin broth in the shape of a

legacy, I do hereby bequeath to the New York Press Club of the City of

New York, $1000, payable on the death of Mrs. Haskett.”

ANGELIC VIRTUE REQUIRED

Not long ago, a wealthy gentleman on Long Island died, who provided that

none of his heirs should inherit, unless they could show that they had

led a life of angelic virtue. Among the conditions mentioned, were

these: That they should not smoke or drink; that they should rise every

morning and breakfast at a certain hour; that they should be in the

house every evening at a certain hour; that they should be industrious

and strictly moral; that they should never enter a barroom, and should

not get married before the age of twenty-five. It is stated that the

heirs were practically disinherited, all but one having failed to live

up to the conditions.

BARE ARMS IMMODEST

A rector of a Yorkshire parish, who died in 1804, left a considerable

property to his only daughter under the following conditions:

1st. That she should not marry unless with the consent of his two

executors, and

2d. That she should dress with greater propriety than theretofore.

This clause was worded thus: “Seeing that my daughter Anna has not

availed herself of my advice touching the objectionable practice of

going about with her arms bare up to the elbows, my will is that, should

she continue after my death in this violation of the modesty of her sex,

all the goods, chattels, moneys, land, and other property that I have

devised to her for the maintenance of her future life shall pass to the

oldest of the sons of my sister Caroline. Should anyone take exception

to this my wish as being too severe, I answer that license in dress in a

woman is a mark of a depraved mind.”

A FANATICAL BAPTIST MINISTER

The will (dated March 26th, 1874) of the Rev. William Hill, late of

Lansdowne Villas, Springfield Road, Cotham, Bristol, Baptist minister,

who died on November 11, 1879, was proved at the district registry,

Bristol, by Emerson Geerish and Thomas Bowbeer, the executors, under

three thousand pounds. After the death of his wife he gives to the

Society for the Relief of Aged and Infirm Baptist Ministers, instituted

in Bath, 1816, and to the Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, each one

hundred pounds. The testator directs “the payment of all my just debts,

funeral and testamentary expenses, as soon as conveniently may be after

my departure to heaven; but, as this is to be my final public document,

I shall here record my detestation of all State establishments of

religion, believing them to be anti-scriptural and soul-ruining.

I have for years prayed the King of Zion to overthrow the

politico-ecclesiastical establishment of the British Empire, and I leave

the world with a full conviction that such prayer must ere long be

answered. I thirst to see the Church brought down, the Church by man set

up, for millions are by it led on to drink a bitter cup. I desire all

posterity to know that William Hill was a conscientious Trinitarian

Baptist Minister, and that he believed infant sprinkling to be from his

Satanic Majesty, the keystone of Popery, therefore the parent of

unnumbered terrible evils; this delusion must also pass away at the

Divinely-appointed time, and the immersion of believers, as plainly

taught by the Great Teacher, the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles, shall one

day universally triumph. Man says, some water in the face, and that

before the child has grace, is what is meant in Jesus’ word, by being

buried in the Lord. The deadly drinking customs of professors and

non-professors are likewise doomed. Heaven dash all error, sin, and the

devil from the earth, and cause truth, holiness, and Christ everywhere

to prevail. Amen.”

THREE TESTAMENTARY GEMS

The three testamentary gems following are to be found in one volume of

the Pennsylvania State Reports:

NUMBER ONE

“February the 28, 1858.

“the requeste of tresse Carey i

want ransler Carey to hav my plase

as long as he shall live i want drusilla Carey

to stay and keepe house for hur father and

marten i want mr carey to give lovica shoop wone

shale wone pare of

stockings Rozanner dark wone coveled i want

cathern stanten

to hav my cloak and to Dresses

i want (erasure) mr carey to give

Won hundred Dolars two the methodus

Church I want drusila carey to hav

all my household property as soon as i am ded.

and after mr carey is ded i

want drusila (erasure) (erasure)

carey two hav my farm.

her

Tereisse X carey”

mark

NUMBER TWO

“In the Name of god I Samull Eddinger

of Moore Township County of Northampton

State of Penn Do make this my Last will

and testament as follows

that is to Say my Disire

my son John he Shall have one

thousand Dollars in Advance before

any of the heirs Shall hav any money

from my Estate personal property

first my Son John Shall Settle up all

my Depts funeral Expace &c.

till all is paid

my Son John he shall setle

my personal property as soon

it is Posible

he shall pay the of the money from

my personal goods the half of

the money to my Daughter Margret and

what is Left from the Balence of

the Thousand Dollrs he tookt of for

himself

my Son John Shall pay to my

Daughter Margret an Annally one a

Hundred and twenty five Dollars for her

Natural Life time or as long she

will Liv in this World

and my Son John he shall have

all my Real Estate for his own

property as Soon my Daughter is Deased

my Son John Shall not pay any Longer

Not to her heirs and to nobody

it be Stopt.”

NUMBER THREE

The third runs as follows: “it to be understood that any of my

grandchildren who shall be guilty of having an illegitimate child, or of

the sin of intemperance, or that do wickedly and illegitimately profane

God’s holy name, he, she, or they, to forever debar themselves from the

benefit of any bequest,” and that the shares of offending ones should be

divided amongst their brothers and sisters, “whose life and conversation

is free from reproach.”

CLAIMING TO BE THE SON OF A KING

One of the most singular cases that ever came before a court of justice

was the dispute as to the validity of the will of the late Mr. W. R.

Smee, probated in 1880 in England. That the testator was a man of

exceptional ability is beyond doubt. His powers of organization were so

good that he was employed by the Post Office authorities to readjust

several departments which had got into a state of disorder. A pamphlet

of his, on the question of the “Repeal of the Malt Duties,” attracted

the attention of the acting Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Bass, who sought an

interview with the writer; and after 1860 he wrote many able articles

for various newspapers. At the same time, there is equally little doubt

that Mr. Smee had insane delusions of the sort which most commonly

afflict lunatics. He believed that he was a son of George IV, and

rightful heir to the throne, and in 1859, before the composition of the

articles just mentioned, he wrote a letter to the Prince Consort,

enclosing a preposterous petition to the Queen on the subject of his

“rights.” This absurd document stated that when out walking with his

nurse he had been recognized by a crowd as the Prince of Wales, and

escorted home amid loud hurrahs. The king had taken him on his royal

knee, and said to him, “Poor boy, poor boy, get on with your learning. A

great destiny is preparing for you, though you do not know it.” Every

morning, he asserted, drugs were administered which took away his

memory. The Duke of Wellington, disguised in a mechanic’s dress,

followed him round Finsbury Circus; and, during his last illness, Mr.

William Smee, senior, had said: “Extraordinary and unheard of means have

been adopted to keep him down, or he must have come to the throne.” In

his will the testator left his property to the corporation of Brighton,

wishing to be associated with his supposed royal father as a benefactor

to that town. As must have been generally expected, the Court pronounced

against the will which benefited the popular seaside resort. “The fact

that a man was capable of transacting business, to whatever extent that

might go, however complicated the business might be, and however

considerable the powers of intellect it might require, did not exclude

the idea of his being of unsound mind,” the president stated in the

course of his interesting judgment. “A man might be a good carpenter and

follow his calling, and yet his mind might be tainted with insanity to

such an extent that he might be held irresponsible for a crime on the

ground that he did not know the nature of the act he committed.

Therefore, all the arguments addressed to the jury on the subject of the

testator’s capacity to deal with complex subjects, to write pamphlets,

and to make calculations, had nothing to do with the question whether he

was of unsound mind or not. He was admittedly of unsound mind, because

shown by that which was the most conclusive symptom and evidence of

unsoundness--namely, the presence of delusions--that was to say, ideas

which they could not conceive any rational man entertaining.” These

arguments do not tend to simplify the difficult duties of those who have

the misfortune to be called upon to give advice in cases of mental

disease.

A WORD LEFT OUT

Mary Richardson, who died on the 28th of May, 1874, made, by her will,

numerous charitable bequests, amongst which was £500 to the “London

Church Building Society.” There being no society in London bearing that

title exactly, a petition was presented by the treasurers of the London

Diocesan Church Building Society for the payment out of court of the

bequest named. The Bishop of London’s fund likewise presented its claim;

as also did the Incorporated Society for Promoting the Enlargement

Building, and Repairing of Churches in England and Wales, the latter

supposing that it most exactly answered the description of a London

church building society. The Vice-Chancellor, however, Sir C. Hall,

decided in favor of the London Diocesan Church Building Society, because

the words used most nearly approached those of the title given by the

testatrix.

AN ENIGMA

WILL OF ROSINE BARROT

I give to my sister 20

” Jeanne 10

” Pauline 6

” Marie 6

” Julie 6

I give to Gustave 6

” Eugénie 7

” Annie 14

---

75

This is my last will and testament, made at Meude, 20th October, 1767.

ROSINE BARROT.

* * * * *

As this was the entire will, without any clue whatever to its

signification, the surviving relatives, for there were no executors

appointed, set their wits to work to discover its enigmatic

signification. At last they found that the testatrix’s property amounted

to 75,000 francs, and they therefore concluded that each unit

represented 1000. Another difficulty arose from the fact that there were

in the family several repetitions of some of the names mentioned in the

will. The decision, however, was worked out by common sense, and,

strange to say, two trials at law that followed, failed to overthrow it.

BODY BEQUEATHED FOR USEFUL PURPOSES

A certain testator devised his property to a stranger, wholly

disinheriting the heir or next of kin, and directed that his executors

should “cause some part of his bowels to be converted into fiddle

strings, and that others should be sublimed into smelling salts, and

that the remainder of his body should be vitrified into lenses, for

optical purposes.” In a letter attached to this will the testator said,

“The world may think this to be done in a spirit of singularity or

whim, but I have a mortal aversion to funeral pomp, and I wish my body

to be converted into purposes useful to mankind.” The testator was shown

to have conducted his affairs with great shrewdness and ability, and had

been regarded by his associates through life as a person possessing high

business qualifications, and the will was upheld.

WILL CONTAINED A SERMON

Another unusual will showing a strong religious belief and which

incorporates a sermon to his heirs, is that of Elias Boudinot which was

probated in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, in 1821. The will contained

twenty-six closely written pages of manuscript. The beginning of the

will which contains the sermon is as follows:

“Know all men by these presents that I, Elias Boudinot, late of the city

of Philadelphia, and director of the mint of the United States, but now

of the city of Burlington, N.J., Doctor of Laws, being by the unmerited

goodness of Almighty God, after great affliction, by a long series of

bad health, and having passed my eighty-first year and returned to a

tolerable state of bodily health, so as to possess a sound and disposing

mind and memory; but being often reminded of the uncertainty of life and

the propriety of settling the intended disposition of my property while

free from the distresses of a sick bed, do make and publish this my last

will and testament.

“And as this instrument cannot take effect till after my death, but must

then be frequently resorted to by my representatives, I do therefore

improve so good an opportunity of repeating the profession I have made

for more than sixty years, and which by the free grace of God, through

Jesus Christ, and by the continued influences of his Holy Spirit, has

been strengthened and confirmed by the most happy experience, founded on

solid ground and by a thorough examination and inquiry into the divine

scriptures through that long period, and in which I hope under the same

blessed influences to finish my mortal race, I mean that of a firm,

unfeigned and prevailing belief in one sovereign, omnipotent and eternal

Jehovah, a God of infinite love and mercy who hath delivered us from the

powers of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear

Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness

of sins, who is the image of the invincible God, the first born of every

creature, and he is before all things and by him all things consist, and

whoever has been and still is reconciled a guilty world unto himself by

his righteousness and atonement, his death and his resurrection,

through whom alone life and immortality have been brought to light in

his gospel, and by the all-powerful influence of his daily spirit, is

daily sanctifying, enlightening and leading his faithful people into all

necessary truth.

“And as it has pleased a holy and sovereign God to favor me with the

continuance of one only child, to whom I most cordially wish and pray

for the best and greatest possible good in time and eternity, I do in

the most solemn manner, as in the presence of the one only great and

glorious God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in view of an

approaching eternity, beseech and entreat her to make the fear and love

of God the great objects of her constant attention and pursuit, and in a

particular manner that she will by a persevering inquiry into, and a

thorough knowledge of the spirit and power of the gospel of Jesus

Christ, which she has been so long, and I trust through divine mercy

savingly acquainted with, endeavor to cherish and increase the like

temper, disposition and usefulness in life as are therein so clearly and

plainly taught and enforced, and which, generally speaking, consist in

an universal benevolence, meekness, self-denial, deep contrition for sin

and unfeigned love to our brethren, with an habitual lively faith in and

dependence upon our Lord Jesus Christ, as the only atonement for our

sins, the source of every blessing, and when the gift of God will

inevitably work by love, purify the heart and be productive of good

works, always remembering that however the profession of a particular

denomination of our holy religion among men may be beneficial to herself

and others in their state of imperfection in which every aid should be

sought to support and manifest the Christian character, yet that the

Church of Christ is one universal and Catholic Church, a communion of

saints not confined to time or place, name or party of Christians, but

that every one who exercises deep and sincere repentance towards God,

unfeigned faith in his beloved Son and worketh righteousness, is born of

God.

“And I do more expressly press it upon her under every circumstance of

life, to consider that day as worse than lost, in which she does not

seek earnestly communion with her Heavenly Father under the special

influence of His Holy Spirit, and she may be positively assured that

this may be done even amidst the common and ordinary business of life as

in the most profound and secret retirements, assisted by the ordinances

of his gospel; would also earnestly recommend her habitually living

under prevailing sense of God’s overruling providence, which, however

wonderful, regards the smallest things of those who love and fear him,

even to the numbering of the hairs of the heads.

“As to all and singular, the temporal estate wherewith it has pleased

God in his undeserved mercy to amply reward my industry and application

to business, for the use and enjoyment of which I do him my most

grateful thanks, acknowledging his great goodness and beneficence to me

therein, I do dispose of the same and all my estate therein in the

following manner, wishing to do what I think by solemn and serious

consideration, will not be contrary to his divine will, but in the end

may advance the honor of his great name.”

Thereafter follow the bequests.

A PARTNERSHIP WITH GOD

We might head this paper “Why Paul Duhalde made his Will,” for certainly

no idea could be much more original than that on which its principal,

and disputed, clause was founded.

A brief sketch of the history of Paul Duhalde cannot fail to interest

our readers, and will best explain the peculiarity of this testamentary

document.

This individual was born at Paris in 1691; he died in 1725; he was the

son of a dealer in diamonds, and lost his father at the age of sixteen

years, when he was sent to Spain by his mother to learn the arcana of

the business. The lad had no success, and returned. He was then placed

with a merchant at Rouen, but did not get on, and subsequently passed to

America, but his restless disposition soon sent him back to France. This

brought him to the year 1717, and he was now twenty-six years of age. He

remained some months with his mother, and then, having contracted a

partnership with two jewel merchants, set off a second time to Madrid;

this enterprise was, however, not more successful than those preceding

it, and he came back to Paris, in the month of February, 1719,

profoundly discouraged, and not without reason.

Here the melancholy reflections consequent on his repeated and

persistent failures suggested to him a very singular notion, that of

contracting a partnership with God. He proceeded to enter seriously into

this abnormal contract, and drew up an act in regular and technical

form, which he transcribed into his day-book on September 24, 1719, in

the following terms: “I have resolved to enter into a partnership with

God, promising and undertaking to fulfil all the within-mentioned

articles; and I enjoin my heirs, whoever they may be, to carry out these

my intentions in case I should die before accomplishing them myself.”

He then proceeds to declare that this association, the object of which

is to deal in precious stones, shall hold good for five years, reckoning

from October 2, 1719. He fixes his capital at 3000 Spanish piastres,

about $3000, being all that remained to him of his patrimony. He binds

himself not to enter into any other partnership during the five years,

unless with a woman, by marriage. As soon as the five years shall have

elapsed, he proposes to balance his accounts, to begin by withdrawing

from the partnership the 3000 piastres with which he started; secondly,

to take from it the dowry that his wife may have brought him; thirdly,

any sum or sums that may have fallen in to him by succession or

otherwise during the time; after which he adds, “And the surplus shall

be equally divided between God and myself.”

This unique partnership having been thus determined, Duhalde starts a

third time for Spain, but the outset of this new attempt does not augur

well for the partners. Two years after, however (1721), the project of a

double marriage between the Courts of France and Spain gives a new

impetus to the branch of commerce in which he is engaged, and he

resolves to improve the opportunity. At last Fortune seems to smile upon

his endeavors, and the ultimate results exceed his fondest hopes. He now

returns to Paris, resolving to settle himself finally there.

In 1722 he married the daughter of De Hansy, a well-known bookseller,

who brought him 30,000 livres, and from his mother, who died in

September of the same year, he inherited 70,226 livres. On May 20, 1723,

a son was born to him.

Meantime Duhalde never loses sight of the obligations he has taken upon

himself toward his partner. He draws, from time to time, from the common

fund, sums which he distributes in the name of God, to the poor, and

inscribes these with regularity and precision in his registers.

On October 1, 1724, the partnership expires. Duhalde strikes a balance

of his accounts, and finds from the aggregate of the entries that he has

already paid to the poor 13,684 livres; but this is not all. In the

statement of account drawn up he has considered three classes of stones

as constituting a portion of the profits: one of these lots is at

Amsterdam, one at Madrid, and one at Paris; these he shares equally,

inscribing on the packets which contain them: “Half for the poor”; and

at the foot of the statement of account he writes: “Misfortune and

malediction upon my heirs, whoever they may be, if, under any pretext

whatever, they should fail to distribute to the poor the half of

whatever proceeds may come from the jewels now in my possession, if so

be God should call me away before I shall have been able to satisfy

their claims myself. Further, if by any extraordinary event it should

appear at my death that no other amounts are forthcoming but those goods

or sums which are virtually the property of the poor, let not a

sacrilegious hand be laid upon them; they constitute a deposit which can

under no circumstances be diverted from its just cause.”

In addition to this precaution, and in order to secure to the poor the

amounts he regarded as strictly their due, Duhalde drew up in the month

of January, 1725, eight bills of 1000 livres each, payable to order from

year to year, comprising the years 1725 to 1732, and placed these bills

in the hands of the Vicar of St. Germain l’Auxerrois.

On January 14, 1725, he fell ill and made his will, by which he declares

that: “In the books which contain the minutes of my affairs there are

several articles touching matters that concern the poor; I beg my

executor to examine these articles with the greatest accuracy, and to

see they are carried out with the strictest attention.”

Two months after, Duhalde dies, leaving a young widow, a minor, and an

infant two years old. The schedule of property is called over, the

administrators of the Hôpital Général are invited to attend. Among the

effects of the deceased are found packets of precious stones, labelled

“Half for the poor”; their portion is estimated at 18,188 livres. The

administrators claim it, but offer to compromise for the sum of 15,900

ff. The young widow protests; the guardian contends that the will should

be set aside on the ground that no sane men ever enter into partnership

with God. The parties appeal to law, and, after a spirited altercation,

a judgment is obtained, April 3, 1726, on the decision of D’Aguesseau

(Avocat-Général), ordering that “The will of Duhalde and the acts and

codicils dependent thereon shall be fulfilled according to the desire of

the testator; he consequently condemns the guardian of the widow and her

son to hand over to the administrators of the hospital funds the jewels

constituting the legacy made by the testator to the poor, but leaving

him the choice of paying the sum in money value, as estimated by

experts to be provided by the Court; the course adopted by the said

guardian to be decided on within a fortnight.”

ECCENTRIC BUT CHARITABLE FRENCHMAN

A gentleman of French birth, named Pierre Henri Baume, died some years

ago at Douglas, Isle of Man, leaving a large sum for charitable

purposes. He was born at Marseilles in 1797, and at an early age was

sent to a military college at Naples, where he became private secretary

to King Ferdinand. About the year 1825 he came to London. At one time he

was a preacher holding peculiar views on theology, then became manager

of a theatrical company, and subsequently got up a scheme for the

establishment of model gardens. He took a lively interest in various

charitable institutions, and expressed a strong desire to accumulate a

great fortune, with the object of eventually endowing or establishing an

institution, on principles which he had himself drawn up, for the

education and benefit of youth of the poorer classes. By great

perseverance and industry, and by subjecting himself almost to

privation, he at last succeeded in amassing a considerable fortune, and

bought land at Colney-hatch, together with a small estate called

Chifont, on Dibdin-hill, in Buckinghamshire. Several obstacles arose as

to the fulfilment of his educational project, and he was ultimately

induced to abandon this idea. After living about a quarter of a century

in London, he went to Manchester and engaged vigorously in a movement

“public-houses without drink.” He also instituted Sunday afternoon

lectures to working-men, which were carried on with varying success for

several years. In 1857 he settled in the Isle of Man, purchased an

estate there, and afterwards resided on the island. At Douglas he fitted

up an odd kind of residence, the entrance to which he made almost

inaccessible, and admission to which could only be obtained by those

whom he had initiated into a peculiar knock. In this little den he lived

like a hermit, sleeping in a hammock slung from the roof, for the room

was so crowded with dusty books that there was no space for a bedstead

or even for a table on which to take his food. He stated that his object

in living in this condition and depriving himself of all comforts was to

enable him to leave as much money as possible for charitable and

educational purposes. He resided in this miserable place for several

years; but his health failing him, he was induced, later, to remove, and

died at a tradesman’s house in Duke street, Douglas. Public attention

was directed to M. Baume’s affairs in London, in consequence of

proceedings taken by him to evict a number of squatters who had located

themselves on his Colney-hatch property, which was popularly known as

“The Frenchman’s Farm.” M. Baume took out letters of naturalization,

which enabled him to enjoy the rights and privileges of an Englishman,

and to dispose of his property as he thought best. He left the whole of

his real and personal property, valued at £54,000, in trust for

charitable purposes in the Isle of Man, on his death.

“LOUIS AGASSIZ, TEACHER”

The will of Agassiz, probated in June, 1874, begins thus: “The last will

and testament of Louis Agassiz, of Cambridge, in the County of Middlesex

and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, teacher.”

Of him the _Boston Globe_ said: “We should think the heart of every

schoolmaster and schoolmistress in the land should bound at reading this

simple announcement. The great naturalist, the peer of Aristotle,

Linnæus, Cuvier, and Von Baer, calls himself, in the most solemn of all

documents, ‘a teacher.’ There is, to us, something inspiring in this

designation. All teachers, whether they are professors in colleges or

directors in the commonest village schools, must be thrilled and

invigorated by the statement that Agassiz is proud to enroll himself in

their ranks. The good, grand, noble man, the apostle of pure science,

the investigator and discoverer, the person who was preëminently a

scientific force as well as a scientific intelligence dies with the

feeling that his occupation was that of a ‘teacher.’ He, of course,

leaves little or no property to his family; the noble woman, the

bereaved wife, the constant companion of his intellect as well as of his

heart, she who followed him whithersoever he was led by the spirit of

scientific research, is, we suppose, the executrix of little but his

glory; but the will is sublime, because it records the fact that Louis

Agassiz was ‘a teacher.’ That was his occupation on earth. What it may

be above, we do not pretend to know. One thing we know is this, that the

simple preamble to his will must kindle into a generous flame every soul

engaged in the great cause of education. ‘Louis Agassiz, teacher!’ but

what a teacher! We preserve many memories of precious conversations with

him on this question of teaching. He considered that teaching was a

communication of life as well as of knowledge. A lad of ten years once

contrived to get into the State House when Agassiz was urging the

incontrovertible arguments for his ‘museum.’ We happened to jostle

against the lad as he was leaving the hall, and asked him, laughingly,

his opinion of the performance. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘I’ve been to many

lectures, and have been tired to death, but Agassiz comes right up to my

notion of the circus!’ When we told Agassiz of this queer compliment, he

was much pleased. He wanted to see the boy who had been so unconsciously

appreciative of the spirit of his speech. He knew that he had magnetized

grave and elderly men, and that what he asked for would be cheerfully

granted; but he desired to shake hands with the lad who thought he was

as good as ‘a circus,’ and sent out from his deep lungs great roars of

laughter in welcoming the testimony of his juvenile admirer.

“It would be idle to multiply instances of the thorough humanity and

geniality of Agassiz. Everybody who knew him can tell hundreds of

anecdotes illustrative of his sympathy with all forms of life, whether

in the jelly-fish, the human infant, the developing boy or girl, the

mature man or woman. Still his conviction of the immateriality and

personality of mind was something wonderful in so austere a naturalist.

We happened once to please him by defining a jelly-fish as organized

water. ‘Now look at it through the microscope,’ he said. ‘But, Agassiz,

the play of the organization is so wonderful that it seems to me that

nothing but mind can account for it.’ ‘You are right,’ was his answer;

‘in some incomprehensible way, God Almighty has created these beings,

and I cannot doubt of their immortality any more than I doubt of my

own.’ His fealty to the rights of animals exceeded that of any great

naturalist who ever preceded him. Incompetent as we are to give him his

due rank among the great naturalists of the world, we think he excelled

every naturalist who has gone before him in striking at the soul and

individuality of all animals below man. It is impossible to convey in

words the peculiar feeling which Agassiz had on this matter. Doubtless

this large and genial genius is now satisfied. We cannot penetrate

beyond the veil.

“What we can do, however, is to celebrate Agassiz as a teacher, and try

to send a new glow into the heart of every person engaged in the

difficult art of teaching. How hard is their work! The present

generation is brought up, as far as education is concerned, on the most

economical principles. No consideration whatever is given to the point

of the will of Agassiz. When he proudly calls himself ‘a teacher,’ he

means that he is a radiator of heat as well as of light. A poet has well

described the method of instruction adopted by Agassiz:

“‘He was like the sun giving me life;

Pouring into the caves of my young brain

Knowledge from his bright fountains.’”

PIPE, TOBACCO AND MATCHES IN HIS COFFIN

Mr. Klaës, who was known among his acquaintances by the name of the

“King of Smokers,” died some years ago near Rotterdam. According to the

Belgian papers he had amassed a large fortune in the linen trade, and

had erected near Rotterdam a mansion, one portion of which was devoted

to the arrangement of a collection of pipes according to their

nationality and chronological order. A few days before his death he

summoned his lawyer, and made his will, in which he directed that all

the smokers of the country should be invited to his funeral, that each

should be presented with 10 lb. of tobacco and two Dutch pipes of the

newest fashion, on which should be engraved the name, arms and date of

the decease of the testator. He requested all his relatives, friends and

funeral guests to be careful to keep their pipes alight during the

funeral ceremonies, after which they should empty the ashes from their

pipes on the coffin. The poor of the neighborhood who attended to his

last wishes were to receive annually, on the anniversary of his death,

10 lb. of tobacco and a small cask of good beer. He desired that his oak

coffin should be lined with the cedar of his old Havana cigar boxes, and

that a box of French caporal and a packet of old Dutch tobacco should be

placed at the foot of his coffin. His favorite pipe was to be placed by

his side, along with a box of matches, a flint and steel, and some

tinder, as he said there was no knowing what might happen. A clever

calculator has made out that Mr. Klaës had, during his eighty years of

life, smoked more than four tons of tobacco, and had drunk about 500,000

quarts of beer.

THANKFULNESS TO GOD

In the codicil annexed to the last will of Robert North, Esq., of

Scarborough, England, proved in October, 1705, the following occurs:

“I give to Mrs. R. G. my English walnut bureau, made large to contain

clothes, but hope she will not forget when she makes use of it that

graces and virtues are a lady’s most ornamental dress; and that that

dress has this peculiar excellence, that it will last for ever and

improve by wearing.

“I give to Lieutenant W. M., my godson, my sword, and hope he will (if

ever occasion should require it) convince a rash world he has learnt to

obey his God as well as his general, and that he entertains too true a

sense of honour to admit anything into the character of a good soldier

which is inconsistent with the duty of a good Christian.

“And now having, I hope, made a proper disposition of my lands and

money, those pearls of great price in the present esteem of men, let me

take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the grand original

proprietor; and here I must direct my praises to that benign Being who

through all the stages of my life hath encompassed me with a profusion

of favours, and who by a wonderful and gracious Providence hath

converted my very misfortunes and disappointments into blessings; nor

let me omit, what the business just finished seems more particularly to

require of me, to return Him my unfeigned thanks, who, to all the

comforts and conveniences of life, hath superadded this also of being

useful even in death, by thus enabling me to dispose of a double

portion, namely, out of love to the poor, and another of gratitude to my

friends.

“All my faults and follies, almost infinite as they have been, I leave

behind me with wishes, that as here they had their birth and origin,

they may here be buried in everlasting oblivion. My infant graces and

little embryo virtues are, I trust, gone before me into heaven, and

will, I hope, prove successful messengers to prepare my way. Thither, O

Lord, let them mount up with unremitting constancy, while my soul in the

meantime feasts itself with ecstatic reflections on that ravishing

change when, from the nonsense and folly of an impertinent, vain, and

wicked world, it shall be summoned to meet its kindred spirits, and

admitted into the blissful society of angels and men made perfect; when,

instead of sickness, gloominess, and sorrow (the melancholy retinue of

sin and house of clay), glory and immortal youth shall be its

attendants, and its habitation the palace of the King of Kings: this

will be a life worth dying for indeed! thus to exist, tho’ but in

prospect, is at present joy, gladness, transport, ecstacy! Fired with

the view of this transcendent happiness and triumphant in hope, these

noble privileges of a Christian, how is it possible to forbear crying

out O Death, why art thou so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of thy

chariot?

“To that Supreme Being, whose treasures and goodness are thus infinite

and inexhaustible, be all honour and glory for ever. Amen.”