YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 06447 2708

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

iN THE

MATTER OF PROVING

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

OF THE LATE

ROBERT SITE WART, Esa.

New-York, l&nuary, 1844.

TO THE PUBLIC.

I have been forced, in a manner known to the reader, to a
publication of the record of the Surrogate's Court, in the matter
of the Will of my late uncle, Robert Stewart, and feel it due
to myself and family, in connexion with it, to make the fol
lowing brief and plain statement of facts. Strictly private as
these facts are, I do not feel at liberty to withhold them, in the
position of defence which I have been compelled to take.
The Lispenard estate, though large, was in 1806, at the death
of my grandfather, Mr. Lispenard, senior, to a great extent un
improved and unproductive, consisting chiefly of meadows and'
marshes, which, like much other property of a similar character
in the same vicinity, were made available as building lots by fill
ing in and the opening of streets, only at an expense-ruinous, as is
well known, to many of the original holders. Nothing but the
talent for business, unwearied vigilance, and skilful manage
ment of my father, Alexander L. Stewart, aided by the expe
rience and large monied resources of his brother, Robert Stew
art, saved him in making his portion of the Lispenard estate
saleable, from the bankruptcy which befel other proprietors in
that section of the city. As it was, he did not escape perplexing
embarrassments for many years.
At a later period, these embarrassments were greatly increased
by advances made to J. W. Webb to establish and sustain the
Morning Courier — advances which not only absorbed all
Mr. Stewart's own ready funds, but required loans by him on

interest from others, and which effectually prevented him, after
the year 1830, from devoting his resources to the improvement
of his own estate, and from making investments open to him,
under circumstances that would, in his opinion, as often ex
pressed, have insured affluence to his children.
From these and other causes, such was the condition of my
father's estate, at the time of his death, in 1838, that had his
Will called for the settlement of his affairs, and the distribution
of his property among his children, it would have yielded a
very small dividend to each. Moreover, the just claims of his
brother, Robert Stewart, for advances made thirty years ago,
would have covered the whole. From these two facts may be
learned, at once, the propriety and the necessity (a propriety and
necessity in which those of the children of Alexander L. Stew
art, who knew the condition of the property, ever cheerfully ac
quiesced) of leaving his estate as he did by a power in trust,
to the management and at the disposal of his brother. My father
well knew, that this was the surest, if not the only means of pro
viding for his children an ultimate competence ; and he knew,
too, better than any other could, from an' association of brother
hood which was without the separation of a day for near forty
years, that his brother had no other object in life but the inter
est of those children.
At the time of my uncle Robert Stewart's death, in June last,
the estate was in a worse condition even, than at the decease
of my father. The reasons for keeping it together, till freed from
its embarrassments, existed even in a greater degree : and hence
it is, and hence only, that I, contrary to my wishes, have been
left his sole devisee.
I have alluded to advances made by my father to J. Watson
Webb. Not only do the books of the estate show what those
advances are, but their whole history, in time and circumstances,
with constant assurances and demonstrations of speedy repay-

ment, is in my possession, in statement after statement, and letter
upon letter, in the hand writing of that individual himself. To
show that there can be no mistake in the nature of these ad
vances, or in the just claim of my father for their return, I will
— without entering into a detail of the successive commuta
tions with creditors, assignments, &c, of the Courier & Enquirer,
which this series of papers exhibits — give one or two ex
tracts only from his own letters, in reference to them.
In a long communication, dated Sept. 1st, 1831, addressed to
Alexander L. Stewart, and urging, on various grounds, a com
mutation of the debt due by him, J. W. Webb thus writes :
" The Courier & Enquirer is at this moment in debt upwards
of $50,000. My half is $25,000. Now let us suppose that we*
pay the interest upon our debt, and realize annually $14,000
of profits : of this sum $7,000 is mine. I must live out of it,
and will have but $4,000 annually to apply to the reduction of
my part of the debt. At the expiration of six years the debt
would be paid ; but how would I stand then with the world 1
Why merely adding simple interest to the amount of your debt
against me, I will owe upwards of $50,000 if * * * * I
now propose as follows : that you shall compromise the whole
of your claim for $15,000; that all mortgages, papers, &c, now
existing shall be cancelled, and anew mortgage for $15,000 ex
ecuted, conditioned that I shall pay $750 and interest on the
whole sum on the 28th day of April next, and $750 and interest
on the whole sum unpaid, on every 20th of October and April
following." A deduction was accorded by my father ; and constitutes
• the $17,000 specified in the frst Will of my uncle Robert Stew
art, as the sum to be deducted from the portion of my sister Helen,
* Mr. Noah was co-proprietor at the time.
f 1 he magnitude of the debt may be easily estimated if six years of simple
interest would swell it to upwards of $50,000.

which Will will be found on an after page, in the'proceedings
of the Surrogate's Court. This $17,000 was a dead loss sus
tained by my father iri compromising with J. W. Webb, and is
entirely distinct from demands existing at the time of making
that Will, secured by bond and mortgage, and responsible sure
ties. On March 17th, 1835, J. W. Webb, in a letter to an
agent of M*. Stewart, after stating the failure of certain
efforts to raise money, continues thus : " In consequence of this
disappointment, I have called on Tylee, and he has consented
to take $14,000 for his claim, which under the assignment is
$15,000, and interest from May 1st, 1832, equal to $18,000.
Mr. Stewart's is $25,0.00, and interest from 8th December, 1832,
to 8th March, 1835; 2 years and 3 months, equal to $29,000.
" Now I will give A. L. S. and D. T. a mortgage on every
thing for $43,000 in full, payable in seven equal semi-annual
instalments of $5,000 each, and one of $8,000, commencing on
the 1st of July, 1836, and terminating on the 1st of January,
1840, with interest at 7 per cent., on the 1st of January and
July in each year, Tylee to receive a half of all payments till
his debt shall be paid. I will then, with Mrs. Webb's* proper
ty, and the aid of two friends, buy off  and  , and pay
 and  . By this arrangement, Mr. Stewart will be paid
within five years, and will commence getting his interest imme-

* Note. — This reference to the property of Mrs. Webb, calls for a passing
remark. In a calumniating and libellous publication against myself and family,
by J. W. Webb, in the Courier and Enquirer of July 26, 1843, he thought pro
per to avow himself the willing agent of what he would represent and have
believed to be, a fraud by my father upon my mother, by securing from her
through the instrumentality of J. W. Webb, a large amount of real property,
comparatively without consideration. While he is candid enough to state that
this property was unimproved, and consequently unproductive, he is careful to

diately. * * * * I beg you to lay this letter before
father at once."
Thus, at the end of four years, it is seen, that in place of the
payment of the $15,000 due, after the deduction of 1831, $29,000
is exhibited, as the debt, to Mr. Stewart. Of this sum, Webb
& Averill of Troy, paid in 1840, as sureties of J. W. Webb, some
$14,000 in western lands ; while the balance, $15,963 20, was
transferred in 1841 to J. W. Webb's schedule of bankruptcy.
These losses of Mr. Stewart, by compromise and bankruptcy,
amount together to more than $30,000 — a greater sum than
his estate, under the best management, is likely to divide to
each of his other children ; and sufficiently accounts for the
efforts of J. W. Webb to invalidate the Will of my uncle.
Now, the justice and equity of making these acknowledged
losses a debt due by J. W. Webb to the estate of Mr. Stewart,
as advances on his wife's portion of her father's property, rests
simply and exclusively upon the question of the proprietor
ship of the Morning Courier, from December, 1827, to May,
1829, during which period the advances by which they occur
red, were chiefly made. This question J. W. Webb thought
proper to bring forward in his paper, on the 17th inst., in
a manner invidious to the memory and honor of my father, and
to his well-merited reputation for integrity and uprightness ; a
withhold the fact that the city property which was in return settled exclu
sively on my mother, yielded her a handsome separate and uncontrolled in
come, which was disposed of at pleasure during her life, as mere pin-money,
and descended at death to her children. The property of Mrs. Webb, alluded
to above, was thus derived. It constituted one-sixth only of the whole, and
was sold years ago, by her husband, for $7,000 — so that my mother received
at4least $42,000, the full value of the unimproved property exchanged by her.
In truth, the whole transaction was to both my father and mother one of per
fect honor and reciprocity of interest.

8
reputation which I shall protect at all hazards. From the mass
of disconnected and detractive matter, obtruded on that date
upon the public, the only points bearing upon the question here
at issue, clearly asserted and boldly upheld are the following :
1st, that J. W. Webb was only the nominal legal proprietor of
the Morning Courier within the dates specified, while Al
exander L. Stewart was the real and bona-fide owner, and
J. W. Webb, a mere agent, settling up the affairs of the pa
per at a weekly salary ; 2d, that he, J. W. Webb, only ap
peared to be a borrotoer of money, while the advances were in
truth on account of Alexander L. Stewart himself; and 3d,
that the monies expended and sunk in sustaining the said
newspaper, amounting in the course of sixteen months to be
tween twenty and thirty thousand dollars were expended and
sunk by Mr. Stewart himself. This, it is said, and seemingly
certified to, Mr. Stewart had admitted.
These three points axe exhibited in a plausible, and, as the
asserter of them evidently would have believed, unanswerable
manner. We will show how far this is the case.
I might, were it necessary, rehearse the contract of the pur
chase of the Morning Courier, by J. W. Webb, from my father,
who held it by an assignment under a judgment for debt, for
the consideration of $6,850. The original is in my possession,
in his own hand, signed and executed on the 17th of Decem
ber, 1827, and bearing upon its face and in its entire spirit,
every possible feature, of as genuine, bona-fide, and irresist-
ingly binding a contract as can be drawn. Passing this by, how
ever, I shall remain perfectly satisfied, as I doubt not will be
the reader, with my own position in the case, and the justice I
do to the memory of my father, by the following brief passages
from an answer in Chancery filed under affidavit by J.
W. Webb, as defendant in a case pending before that Court,
April 6th, in the year 1830, wherein he thus solemnly declares :

9
1st. " And this defendant further answering says, and charges
the truth to be that the said Alexander L. Stewart never was
a proprietor of, nor ever had any proprietary interest what-
ever, in the said newspaper establishment called the Morning
Courier, either before or after this, defendant purchased the
same /"
2d. " And this defendant further answering says, that he con
tinued to conduct and regulate the said Morning Courier up
on his own account, devoting his whole time and attention
thereto, and exercising upon all occasions an entire control over
its columns and concerns until the month of May, 1829, when
the same was united to the said New- York Enquirer !"
3d. " And this defendant further answering says, that he,
J. W. Webb, in sustaining the said newspaper for about sixteen
months, had expended and sunk between twenty and thirty
thousand dollars /"
J. W. Webb says, "figures cannot lie /" I would ask, can
oaths in Chancery 7 And which is to believed, the bold asser
tions, plausible conclusions from false premises, and ingenious
mystifications of his publication of the 17th inst, or these an
swers under affidavit which completely falsify the whole of them?
As to the assertion that my father abandoned his legal claims
against J. W. Webb in 1829, at a time when the advances by
him amounted to near $50,000, or at any after period, and then
demanded and obtained a renewal of them on discovering that
the union of the Courier with the Enquirer was likely to be
come a profitable concern, it is utterly untrue. Never for one
moment was this the case, as I can prove, not only from the
books and records in my possession, but by the testimony of at
least half a dozen living witnesses. There were times both be
fore and after the junction of those papers, when my father, from
endless disappointments in the return of monies which he had
been persuaded to advance from month to month, on the most
2

10
delusive and deceptive demonstrations of immediate and perma
nent benefits of the most important kind to J. W. Webb and his
family, did fully determine to " blow up " the concern, as it has
been expressed, by levying an execution upon it and all its ap
purtenances, to save what he could from the wreck, and "pocket
a loss," for which, there was no remedy. It was under this de
termination that the conversation with Mr. Tylee adduced
took place ; a determination which my father was afterwards
led once again to forego only by the most urgent appeals, foun
ded on representations of the penury to which his daughter and
her children would be reduced, accompanied by another of J.
W. Webb's convincing demonstrations, that by sparing the es
tablishment and extending a little further aid, he would soon
be in possession of all his advances, and see his son-in-law and
family in independence.
J. W. Webb asserts that, after the 25th of May, 1829, " he
never received or borrowed one solitary dollar from the estate ;"
and also, that Mr. Stewart constantly made one per cent, in all
his monied transactions with him, by discounting his notes at
seven per cent., while " he himself always borrowed money at
six percent." If by " one solitary dollar" is meant one dollar
by itself alone, unaccompanied by others, this may be true ;
but, it is also true that my father's books show that, within the
year after May, 1829, he received hundreds and thousands of
dollars in company with one another, not only in the payment
of J. W. Webb's notes in bank, but in cash on his due bills du
ly entered with name and date. The testimony of my father's
books, however, is rejected by him — so I will again look to his
own records. A note of only five lines, addressed " to A. L. or
Robert Stewart," on Oct. 23d, 1829, five months after the above
date, in effect contradicts at once both the above assertions. It
begins and ends abruptly thus :
" To-morrow being Saturday, we will require $500 this morn
ing.

11
" Mr. Coster is prepared to let you have $10,000 on the 10th
of Nov. at seven per cent., payable at any time you feel disposed
to do so. Yours, J. W. Webb."
The $10,000 were gladly taken from Mr. Coster, and retain
ed, for years, at seven per cent., and is one only of many perma
nent loans, at the same interest, which my father was compelled
to make on his account.
J. W. Webb complains, and would have it believed to be true
that a debt of J. B. Skillman, the original proprietor of the
Morning Courier, of a large amount,* forms a part of my father's
alleged dues from him. This is untrue, and predicated only on
the false ground of Alexander L. Stewart's proprietorship of
the Morning Courier. The Answer in Chancery, before quoted
from, recites the whole of this matter. In Dec. 1827, J. B. Skill-
man owed my father $9,371, to save which he was about to
sell at sheriff's sale the Morning Courier, with all its properties.
Instead of doing so, however, at the earnest persuasion of J. W.
Webb, my father sold to him the assignment held by him of that
establishment with its appurtenances, the good will included, as
before stated, for $6,850 — thus abandoning $2,521, the balance
of J. B. Skillman's debt.
The properties of the Morning Courier at the time, aside from
the good will, are thus exhibited by J. W. Webb, in his own
hand writing, in a statement given to my father while the nego
tiation was pending :
Due the paper (Morning Courier) in the country,
$2,700, say good,  $2,000
Due the paper in the city, $8,500, say good, 7,000
Press, types, &c, - - ... 2,000
$11,000
* His brother, in the following record of the Court, speaks of it as $20,000 !

12
Thus it is seen that he received, at the purchase, property of
the establishment estimated in his own exhibit at $11,000 good,
for a debit of $6,850, transferred on my father's books from J.
B. Skillman's account to his own.*
J. W. Webb complains, in his article of the 17th inst., that the
alleged claims against him are the accumulations of compound
interest. If he means by this term an exaction of interest which
the laws of the State do not sanction, I reply that the office of
my father and my uncle is the last place in the city in the busi
ness transactions of which, an infringement of law or failure in
the honor of gentlemen, will be found. If he means accumula
tions arising necessarily from a neglect to meet his obligations
when due, and constant changes in his position of debtor, pro
posed and urged by himself in a substitution of the documents
by which he was bound, and the shifting of his securities, who
has he to blame but himself, and why did he not prevent such
forms and amounts of interest by cancelling his debt? My
father was paying interest to others for the very money drawn
from him by J. W. Webb, and why should it be thought un
generous or a reproach in him, to expect and charge interest so
long as his advances remain unpaid ?
And why were not those advances returned? Had not J.
W. Webb the means ? Let his mode of life during the whole
period of his indebtedness give the answer. He was in the re
ceipt at the time, from the Courier & Enquirer, of the avowed
income of some $20,000 above all expenses, and was living daily
in a style unsurpassed by any gentleman of the city. In the
winter, at his own magnificent dwelling in Carroll-place, or,
with a large family of children and servants, in the finest suites
of rooms at the City Hotel or the Astor House ; and in the sum
mer at a beautiful country-seat, his own purchase, surrounded
* See contract of purchase by J. W. Webb, Appendix, Letter F.

13
by all the appointments and appliances of wealth and luxury,
including a well-filled cellar of the most choice and expensive
wines, gardens and grounds of great extent and beauty, adorned
by a conservatory of splendid exotics, while his barns, with
stables for a breed of race-horses, were in like extravagance.
Such were some of the lavish expenditures for years of the
debtor, who would have it believed that he has been hardly
dealt with by having just interest charged on the loans of a cred
itor, who^ with his own family was living, the year round, in a
plain and old-fashioned residence in Hudson-street, in a quietude
and comparative simplicity which, however much that of choice,
was nevertheless in a great measure the result of necessity, from
the absorption of his floating resources in the devouring whirl
pool of the Morning Courier, and which is known often to have
given rise to invidious remark, in the circles of society in which
himself and family moved.
I will state one additional fact only. To this, however, I would
invite the special attention of the reader, in connexion with the
principal point in the opposing testimony produced by J. W.
Webb in the subjoined record. Previous to the illness of my
uncle Robert Stewart, the estate was indebted to me $53,000,
and for which I had very little or no security. When it ap
peared probable that my uncle might not long survive, I be
came exceedingly anxious, from considerations disconnected
with any selfish interest, to have this debt secured to me, and
strongly urged the necessity of it upon him myself, and begged
my sister, Mrs. Charles Stewart, her husband, and my uncle's
counsel, Gen. Sandford, to go to him and earnestly persuade
him to this. This they did ; but to all importunity on the sub
ject he replied, that he could not, in honor to other creditors,
secure me ; and that if anybody was to lose by the estate, it must
be one of his own blood. This continued to be resolutely his
determination, till it was proposed to effect the object by a pur-

14
chase on my part of the real property of the estate, in which my
debt should be received as a first payment, and my bonds and
mortgages taken for the balance of the purchase money, for the
security and payment of the remaining creditors.
To this plan he at once acquiesced ; became anxious for its
execution ; and was impatient till it was accomplished. It is to
this transaction, related in detail by me to the brothers of J.
W. Webb, in the conversations referred to in their testimony —
in which the Will of my uncle was also a topic, — -and to this
only that all the importunity with my uncle of myself, my sister,
and her husband, and his counsel, as stated by me to them,
had reference, or was true. ; In applying it to the changing of
my uncle's will, in place of thus securing my debt, they have
made a mistake, by confounding in their recollections one part
of my conversation with another, which, however much to be
regretted, is not to be pronounced impossible in an interview of
hours upon a single subject.
This importunity for the security of my debt, is the only im
portunity ever exercised by me with my uncle, either by my
self, or through the influence of others. His Will of 1838 is
in my own hand writing ; in copying it for his signature my
uncle told me the reason for the deduction of the $17,000 from
Mrs. Webb's share ; and that although my father had been obli
ged to relinquish his legal claims to that sum in compromising
with her husband, he had ever considered it due in equity to
his estate ; and it had ever been my father's determination as it
was his,, to deduct it from the wife's share. With the making
of his last Will, I had nothing to do, It is contrary to my
wishes, as I have ever i asserted, and again assert, and at a
sacrifice both of health and pleasure, that the estate in its
embarrassments was left in my hands. In receiving the
Will from my uncle, which I did only from what I con
ceived, and what he kn6w, to be an imperative necessity in the

15
case, I gave no pledge or promise as to the final disposal of the
property, nor did he ever exact such pledge or promise, or ever
give me any instructions, or express any wishes, in reference to
it, either before or after the time of its execution. My uncle,
however, well knew, from the very best of proofs, what I have
ever declared, and now again avow, that in reference to this
whole matter, I have, and ever have had, but one object at heart,
and one purpose to fulfil — which is, to secure, to the utmost
of my ability, the best interest of my sisters and their families ;
and not less that of my sister Helen L. Webb and her children,
than of the rest.
LISPENARD STEWART.
Hudson-Street, New-York, )
January 24, 1844. \

SURROGATE'S COURT.

In the matter of proving the )„ , .-,
last Will and Testament of ( Sxr*ROf A™ s ?*™*>
Robert Stewart, deceased. ) September 11, 1843.
Charles W. Sandford, a witness produced, sworn and
examined in support of the will, being duly sworn, deposeth
and saith, I am by profession a counsellor at [law, and reside
in the city of New- York. I was intimately acquainted with the
testator, Robert Stewart, for about twenty-eight years. The will
being shown to him, he says he was present, and saw Robert
Stewart sign the said will, and declare that it was his last will
and testament. The will is dated and was executed on the
third day of May, eighteen hundred and forty -three : the sub
scription to the will was made by the testator in my presence,
and after signing it he published and declared it to be his last
will and testament. Mr. Stewart then requested Mr. Gerring
and myself to subscribe the same as witnesses, which we did in
the presence of the testator : I saw Mr. Gerring subscribe as a
witness. The testator, at the time of the execution of this will,
was, as I have understood and believe, upward of eighty years
of age. I believe that the testator was, at that time, of sound
mind and memory, and in all respects competent to make a
will.
C. W. SANDFORD.
Sioorn before me this Wth day of September, 1843.
David B. Ogden.
The case was then adjourned upon motion of Col. Webb, on
account of the absence of Mr. Hall, his counsel.
Monday, September V&th, 1843. The witness being cross-
examined, says : the will is in my hand writing. Mr. Stewart
died, I think, the latter end of June — I think on the 26th day
of that month. I drew the will the night before it is dated, at
my office — there was nobody present when I drew the will —
3

18
I received the instructions for the drawing of the will from the
testator — I received these instructions about a week before I
drew the will — I saw Mr. Stewart once after he gave me the
instructions and before the will was drawn — I think this was
about two days before the will was drawn — I do not remember
that any body was present at the last mentioned interview. When
I received the instructions for the will, nobody was present but
the testator and myself.
Question. Did he assign any reason for making the will in
its present form ?
Answer. He did.
Q. What were the reasons he assigned ?
A. He assigned several reasons. We had at several previous
interviews at different times, talked of altering or redrawing his
will ; and I had advised with him as to the best mode of dispo
sing of his estate, and had recommended a different course from
the one contained in this will. At. the interview in which I
received the instructions, he told me that he had made up his
mind to leave the whole estate to Lispenard, and he expressed
to me his reasons for so doing: that his estate was not worth
dividing as I had proposed ; that it should be kept together, and
thus be better able to sustain the litigation then pending, and
that Lispenard had shown himself so good a brother that he was
satisfied that it was more to the interest of his sisters to have
them under the care of Lispenard, than to have the property
wound up and sacrificed when the share which each would get
would soon be squandered or wasted. By the shares which
each would get, I mean the shares which each would get in the
way I had proposed. I discussed the matter with him at this
time, and left him, he asking me to make a draft of such will
as he wished to have drawn, which I promised to do in a day
or two.
I had another matter at this time in charge for him, and after
a day or two he sent word that he wanted to see me on this
other subject. I went to see him, and he spoke to me again
about the will. At this interview I asked him if he still wished
to have it drawn in the way he had mentioned, I having some
hope that he had changed his mind. He still persisted in his

19
directions, and I again promised to draw the will as directed.
I was, however, very busy during the succeeding two or three
days, and did not draw the will until I received another mes
sage from him, requesting me to see him on the afternoon of the
second of May. I had not then drawn the will, and I sent him
word that I could not see him that afternoon, but that I would
call upon him at about eight o'clock the next morning. I drew
the will that evening; and the will now offered for probate is
the original draft made by me. The next morning I took it up
and read it to him ; and after it was read, finding that he ap
proved of it, I proposed to engross it, and have it executed the
next day. He said, however, that it was clear enough, and he
would execute it as it was. He proposed to send to his neigh
bor Dr. Hunter, as a witness to the will. I suggested that he
might as well execute it before, one of his own clerks. Mr.
Gerring was then sent for, and the will was executed.
Q. Are these all the conversations you had with Mr. Stewart,
and all the instructions given and reasons assigned by him, for
the making the will as it now is ?
A. No. We had several conversations on the subject of ma
king his will, but Mr. Stewart had never given me any direc
tions to prepare a will until the conversation above mentioned.
Q. What passed in those several conversations; when and
where were they held ; and in whose presence ?
A. These conversations took place sometimes at my resi
dence, where Mr. Stewart was in the habit of frequently calling
for several years almost weekly, and sometimes daily. And I
have also occasionally conversed with him on this subject at
his own office. But Mr. Stewart never spoke to me upon the
subject of his will, nor I to him, in the presence of any third
person, until the time the will was executed. These conversa
tions were so numerous, and so intermingled with other sub
jects, that it would be almost impossible to detail them.
Q. How far back, in point of time, did the conversations
concerning the making of this will reach?
A. Mr. Stewart had conversed with me I think for two years
about redrawing his will. I had drawn a former will for
him.

20
Q. When did you draw that former will ?
A. I do not recollect the date ; but it was very soon after the
death of Alexander L. Stewart that this former will was executed.
Q. In whose presence?
A. I do not recollect. I do not remember whether I was pres
ent or not when it was executed. I think Alexander L. Stew
art died in 1838, on the 29th of March.
Q. Was that former will in existence when the present will
was executed?
A. I presume it was ; but I have not seen it for several years.
Q. Do you know where it now is?
A. I do not.
Q. Have you heard Mr. Lispenard Stewart say where it was
since the death of the testator ?
A. I have not.
Q. What was the general character of the former will of
which you have spoken ?
A. That will (with the exception of a provision for the widow,
similar to the one in the present will) divided the property, after
the payment of debts, equally among the children of his brother
Alexander. This was the general scope of the will, but not
having seen it for several years, I cannot be more particular
about it.
Q. Did Mr. Robert Stewart never give you any other reasons
for his radical change in his will than those you have already
stated ?
A. Mr. Robert Stewart and myself had previously discussed
the subject of an entire ehange in his will, before the directions
were given, and before I was aware of his intention to devise his
estate to Lispenard Stewart. Among other reasons spoken of or
discussed between Mr. Stewart and myself, for changing his
will, was the fact, that several of the devisees in that will were
important witnesses in the suits pending, in relation to the will
of Alice Lispenard ; and I had proposed to Mr. Stewart a mode
of altering his will, and retaining those witnesses, without ma
terially changing his original intention.
Q. Were there any other reasons assigned by him?
A. So many other things were said, at different times, in

21
relation to a change of his will, that I cannot undertake to state
any other reasons given by him at this time : those which I have
given were the principal reasons.
Q. Did you suggest to him that the devisees referred to were
important, and nrght become incompetent witnesses relative to
the will of Alice Lispenard, or did he make the suggestion to
you ?
A. I do not think the suggestion was made by either of us.
Mr. Stewart was as fully aware of it as I was ; but the mode of
obviating the difficulty was a subject of discussion between us.
Q. Were these discussions held before the trial in the Su
perior Court, involving the question as to the competency of
Alice Lispenard to make a will, or afterwards?
A. Both before and afterwards.
Q. How long before ?
A. My impression is that our first conversation on the subject
was two or three years before that trial ; possibly not so long
before. Q. You have said that you advised with Mr. Stewart as to
the best mode of disposing of his estate. Did he ever ask your
advice as to the best mode of disposing of it, or did you make
the suggestion voluntarily?
A. I mean to say, that while understanding, as I supposed I
did, the general intent of Mr. Stewart, I suggested a mode of
effecting that intent, and still prevent the rejection of the testi
mony of such of the children of Alexander Stewart as were
important witnesses in the controversy in relation to the properly
of Alice Lispenard.
Q. What was that intent to which you refer?
A. At that time I supposed his intention was to dispose of his
property substantially for the benefit of the family of Alexander
L. Stewart.
Q. Was the will now before the Court Robert Stewart's mode
of carrying out that intent, as expressed by him to yon ?
A. Mr. Robert Stewart said nothing about that intent at the
time I received his instructions for the present will, except so
far as it was expressed in what he said about Lispenard's sisters,
which I have before detailed.

22
Q. What was the mode suggested by you ?
A. I had suggested to Mr. Stewart, a long time before receiv
ing instructions for the present will, that instead of devising his
estate directly to the children of Alexander L. Stewart, he
should invest the share which he proposed to give to each of
the children of Alexander for the benefit of their children, by
which the parent would receive the income as guardians for the
children, but would not have such an interest in the estate as
to exclude them from being witnesses.
Q. Did Mr. Stewart tell you or suggest that the present will
was intended to accomplish the same object, or anything to
that effect?
A. He did not. This suggestion of mine had been made a
long time previous ; and I supposed, until the morning when I
received instructions for the present will, that it would be the
basis of a new will, and I spoke of it again on receiving the in
structions. Mr. Stewart answered me very decidedly, that the
estate was not worth dividing. I said, O yes, Mr. Stewart, it is
well worth dividing; it would give them at least twenty thous
and dollars for each share. His answer was, if it had to be
wound up to make such a division, (moaning a division in six
trusts as I had proposed,) it would not give half that sum to
each share ; it is better to keep the estate together, and it will
be better able to go through its difficulties, (referring to the law
suits and other difficulties.) I was then endeavoring to raise
money for him.
Q. What did the estate consist of?
A. At that time the estate consisted of three' leasehold lots,
with buildings on them, and thirty-two lots in fee, on some of
which are buildings owned by Mr. Stewart, and some of them
were under lease to tenants who owned the buildings on them.
Mr. Stewart had also some personal property in the way of
debts due to him, some wild land in the southern part of the
State, not of much value, and a mill site and some land in Ohio •
but he owed a large amount of debts, and part of his property
in this city was mortgaged.
Q. How much did the debts due to him amount to, includ
ing bonds and mortgages ?

23
A. I do not know.
Q. Were you ever present when a conversation or conversa
tions was held by Mr. Stewart with any third person in relation
to the making of this will ?
A. I have no recollection of ever having been present at any
such conversation.
Q. Do you know of any such conversation having taken
place ?
A. I do not.
Q. Did Lispenard Stewart ever tell you that he had had
such conversation with the testator.
A. Mr. Lispenard Stewart informed me since this will was
executed, that he was not aware until he was called in to
receive the will on the morning it was executed, that his uncle
intended to make him the sole legatee and devisee. I never
heard Lispenard Stewart say that he had conversed with his
uncle about this will. I have never heard Lispenard say any
thing about the making this will more than I have stated as
having taken place after the will was executed.
Q. Did you ever hear Robert Stewart the testator say, that
he had conversed with Lispenard Stewart on the subject of
this will?
A. I did not.
Q. Did Robert Stewart state to you, or give you to understand
that Lispenard Stewart was to hold the estate as well for the
benefit of his sisters as for himself.
A. No.
Q. Have you never so stated to the children of Alexander
Stewart? A. No. I may have stated what Mr. Stewart said when he
instructed ma to draw the will in relation to Lispenard's sisters,
as I have already stated in this examination; and nothing
beyond it as having been said by Robert Stewart the testator,
and I may have stated what I supposed or presumed were rea
sons with Mr. Stewart, for making the will in its present shape.
Q. Have you not told Col. Webb, in the presence of Lis
penard Stewart and his sisters, that the reason which Robert
Stewart had for making his will in its present form was, to

24
remove the incompetency of such as might be witnesses in the
matter of Alice Lispenard, or words to that effect?
A. I have no doubt that I stated this as one of the reasons
which induced Robert Stewart to make the will.
Q. Has not Lispenard Stewart stated the same thing to the
same persons in your presence, and professed his readiness to put
the trust in favor of his sisters upon paper, if it would not
thereby disqualify the witnesses in the case before referred to ?
A. The only conversation at which I was present, and to
which the two last questions apply, was on the occasion of read
ing the present will two or three evenings after the death of
Robert Stewart. I attended at that meeting and read the will
at the request of Lispenard Stewart, and made such explana
tions of the motives of Mr. Robert Stewart as 1 thought most
likely to take off the edge of the disappointment which was felt
by most of the persons present when the contents of the will
were ascertained on that occasion. My impression is that Lis
penard Stewart concurred in the explanation made by me as to
the motives of the testator, and I understood him to say further
that he had no desire or anxietyto appropriate this estate tohis own
use; and if he could with propriety get rid of it consistently
with what he deemed the interest of the family, he should
do so. This is the substance of what I understood him to say ;
I cannot remember the words.
Q. Did not Lispenard Stewart state on the occasion last
referred to that the testator had put the property in his hands in
trust, and that he intended to fulfil the trust accordingly?
A. I never heard him make any such statement or anything
to the same effect.
Q. Did he not say that he considered himself as the trustee
of his sisters, and avow his determination to hold the estate for
their benefit ; and when asked by Col. Webb whether such beino-
his intention, he was willing to put the property in trust, he
did not reply that he was, if by so doing he would not disqualify
the witness referred to ; and did he not thereupon appeal to you
to know if it could be done, and did you not say to the persons
present that you could not advise Lispenard to such a course,
because it would disqualify the witnesses?

25
A. The simple answer would be no ; but as that might leave
some uncertainty as to that part of the answer referred to, it
may be proper for me to state more explicitly that I did not
hear Lispenard Stewart say anything about his being a trustee
or holding the property in trust, or any words to that effect, but
he repeatedly expressed the idea that he intended to apply the
residue of the estate, after settling its affairs, to the benefit of
his sisters, and on one occasion, that evening, when he made
that statement, he was asked, and I think by Col. Webb, whether
he would place the estate in trust for that purpose, or would
execute a declaration of trust, or some other instrument to
secure such a disposition of the property; and I think I was
appealed to to recommend such a course, and on such appeal,
I think I said I could not advise Lispenard to execute such a
paper ; that it would incapacitate the witnesses ; the discussion at
this time had become very confused and angry, and several
persons talking at a time; and I cannot tell by whom the
appeal was made to me.
(Mr. Hall and Mr. Jordan appear and contest the will in
behalf of Col. Webb, and his wife Helen.*)
(Adjourned to Thursday on motion of Mr. Hall.) Thursday
September 21, 1843.
The cross examination of Mr. Sandford continued.
The record of the will of Alexander L. Stewart deceased,
proved 23d April, 1838, was given in evidence by the counsel of
Col. Webb and wife,* who are opposing the proof of the present
will. It is admitted that no inventory of the estate of Alexan
der L. Stewart was filed in the Surrogate's office. Mr. Hall
also gives in evidence a deed from Lispenard Stewart, trustee,
party of the first part, Robert Stewart, party of the second part, ,
and Charles Tudor Stewart, party of the third part, dated on
the 1st of June, 1843. Recorded in Lib. 437, page 357; also
a deed from Charles Tudor Stewart to Lispenard, dated on the
2d day of June, 1843, recorded in Lib. 437, page 355.
The cross examination of Mr. Sandford continued ; he being
asked whether he has any knowledge of the two deeds just
mentioned.

* See Mrj. Weju's Petition to the Court against this use of hsr name, Ap
pendix, Letier B. 4

26
A. Yes sir. They were drafted by me and were executed
in my presence, and were acknowledged before me as a com
missioner. They were executed on the 1 7th day of June last,
and were acknowledged at the same time. They were drawn
between the 1st of June and the 17th of that month. They
were drawn by the direction of Robert Stewart and of Lis
penard Stewart. I cannot say who first suggested having these
deeds drawn, but the transaction occurred in this way. Alex
ander L. Stewart and Robert Stewart, had been for several
years indebted to Lispenard Stewart, to a large amount for
monies lent by him to assist them in their business. In the
spring of 1843, this debt amounted to over fifty thousand
dollars, and in consequence of the difficulties and embar
rassments of the estate, Lispenard Stewart had become very
uneasy about this money ; he applied to his uncle Robert Stewart
to secure the debt in some way, and I had several interviews
with Robert Stewart on the subject. Lispenard wanted his
uncle to give him mortgages, which he was reluctant to do, as it
would prevent his raising monies then pressingly wanted for other
purposes, and finallyin the course of conversation between us and
Robert Stewart, the suggestion was made that Robert Stewart
should sell Lispenard real estate sufficient to pay the debt. Sever
al subsequent conversations took place between me and Lispen
ard, and between me and Robert Stewart, which finally resulted in
an agreement made about the first of June last, that Lispenard
should become the purchaser of all the real estate in this city, in
which Robert Stewart was interested, subject to the encumbrances
then upon it, and that he should execute mortgages to his uncle for
the balance of the purchase moneyover his own debt, and the prior
incumbrances, to be divided into such sums and upon such
lots as Robert Stewart should find most convenient to negotiate,
to raise funds to meet his engagements. Bonds and mortgages
were accordingly drawn and executed by Lispenard to his
uncle Robert, amounting in the aggregate to fifty -seven thous
and dollars, under an understanding that these mortsrao-es
should be redrawn and altered in amounts and in the lots cover
ed by them, as should be afterwards required by Robert Stewart,
so as to enable him the more conveniently to negotiate them.
The mortgages were never recorded, but now remain in my

27
possession unrecorded. The bonds are also in my possession,
and until the will is proved, I did not think it proper to deliver
them to Lispenard Stewart, as I considered myself as holding
them for the estate of Robert Stewart. Mr. Robert Stewart was
not present when the bonds and mortgages were executed.
They were executed at my office. They were executed some
days after the deeds were executed, which was on the 17th
June. I had conversed with Robert Stewart on the day the
deeds were executed as respects the division of the amount and
of the property to be put in each of the several mortgages. I
exhibited to him a memorandum which I had made, dividing
the sum and property, to be put into the different mortgages.
He did not precisely approve of this division, but said I might
either have the mortgages made out as contained in my memo
randum, under the understanding that they might be afterwards
altered, or it might be left until he designated the amounts and
property to be mentioned in each mortgage. I had the mort
gages drawn, however, according to my memorandum, and they
were executed accordingly. I think there are four or five
separate mortgages, and as many bonds. The mortgages were
regularly acknowledged before me as commissioner. The
bonds and mortgages bear the same date as the deed to Lis
penard Stewart, but the acknowledgments on the mortgages
will show the day they were executed. I never told Robert
Stewart that the bonds and_rnortgages had been executed, and
were in my possession.
Q. What was the condition of Robert Stewart's health at the
time these bonds and mortgages were executed?
A. Robert Stewart had been confined to his office and the
adjoining house, occupied by the family of Alexander Stewart,
for nearly three months prior to his death, in consequence of an
injury to one of his feet. This resulted in a running sore,
which kept reducing* him until some time in the beginning of
the month of June, when I understood that the sore was getting
better, and that the general debility arising from it, was some
what lessened. I have at present no distinct recollection of
having seen him after the 17th June, although I may possibly
have seen him once or twice after that day. On that 17th June

28
he appeared $o be quite feeble, and very much reduced, from his
long confinement ; but he thought he was getting better, as he
said'; but he appeared very much emaciated : for some days after
this I understood he was still getting better. I so understood from
his clerks, and members of his family, until the day when the
mortgages were executed, when Lispenard Stewart came to my
office and said that his uncle was much worse, and that if any
thing was to be done, it ought to be done immediately. I said
I did not know of anything except that I thought he should
execute those mortgages, which he accordingly did, and Robert
Stewart died on that day, or on the following day. Robert
Stewart had for many years kept a bed in his office, but whether
he died in that room or not, I cannot say. I always found him
in the office after his illness, and never during his sickness
saw him in any other place. When the will of Robert Stewart
was executed, it was delivered to Lispenard Stewart, and it was
in his possession on the 17th June, as I presume.
Q. What portion of the real estate of Robert Stewart, em
braced in the will, is described in the deed already spoken of?
A. The deeds were intended to convey all the real estate
which Robert Stewart was interested in, in the city of New-
York. The description of the property contained in the deeds
covers all the real estate in which Robert Stewart was interested in
the city of New- York, as far as I know, except an interest in
a water grant lying opposite to some of the property on West-
street, described in the deed which was part of the property
devised by the will of Alexander Stewart.
Q. Who fixed the valuation upon the property conveyed to
Lispenard Stewart.
A. A list of the property so conveyed, with an estimate of
its value, was made by Mr. Gerring, the head clerk in Mr.
Stewart's office, and submitted to me. I made my suogestions
on the same paper in pencil, and took it to Mr. Robert Stewart
and submitted it to him, and he concurred in my estimation.
Q. Had not Robert Stewart, within six months prior to his
death, conveyed or caused to be conveyed, directly or indirectly,
to Lispenard Stewart, other real estate than that described in
the deeds ?

29
A. I do not recollect of any such conveyance.
Q. Has any such conveyance ever been made by Robert
Stewart to Lispenard, since the death of Alexander Stewart?
A. Yes. Robert Stewart agreed to take some land and a
mill seat in Ohio, in discharge of a liability or claim held by
him, against Webb & Averill of Troy, and by his direction the
deed for this property in Ohio was made to Lispenard Stewart.
Q. Do you recollect any other conveyance ?
A. I do not recollect of any other excepting a deed that was
executed to Lispenard Stewart ofa house and lot in Watts-street,
which was the subject of the recent trial in the Superior Court,
between the heirs of Theophilact Lispenard and Mr. Robert
Stewart. Q. What was the value of the property in Ohio that has been
mentioned, and of the house and lot in Watts-street ?
A. I do not know the value of the property in Ohio. Mr.
Robert Stewart supposed it might be worth some six or eight
thousand dollars ; he took it at a valuation, on the settlement of
the claim against Webb & Averill, for about thirteen thousand
dollars. The house and lot in Watts-street was worth from
three to four thousand dollars.
Q. Were these two properties included in the estimate which
you have already spoken of, as being shown by you to Robert
Stewart, and as being approved of by him?
A. No.
Q. Did the sum of one hundred and twelve thousand dollars,
the consideration mentioned in the deed executed on the 17th
day of June, embrace, according to your belief, the whole value
of the real estate of Robert Stewart, in the city of New- York?
A. No ; that sum was the consideration after deducting the
previous mortgages on the property, and an estimated sum to
pay the expenses of the pending litigation. The consideration
mentioned in the deed, was considered as the net value of the
property, after deducting the prior incumbrances and the esti
mated sum for the expenses of the litigation. Robert Stewart, on
the first of June, was indebted to Lispenard Stewart to an
amount exceeding fifty-four thousand seven hundred dollars ;
and this sum, with the fifty-four thousand dollars before spoken
of, formed the consideration expressed in the deed.

30
Q. At what sum were the expenses of the litigation estimated ?
A. I estimated them at ten thousand dollars, but Mr. Robert
Stewart altered the amount to seven thousand dollars.
Q. What, in your opinion, is the value of the personal property
left by Robert Stewart, at the time of his death ?
A. I have not seen any list of debts or securities belonging to
his estate, nor have I examined his books, either before or since
his death ; my knowledge on the subject is derived solely from
the constant habit of Mr. Robert Stewart of consulting me re
specting his affairs for many years past. In this way, I have
derived a general knowledge of his estate ; and had, prior to his
death, an impression that his whole property, real and personal,
prior to the conveyance to Lispenard Stewart, was worth from
one hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars, after payment of his debts. At Mr. Stewart's request, I
had drawn for him,, a year or two previous to his death, an affi
davit, that he was worth no personal property whatever, after
the payment of his debts ; of the truth of which affidavit I
have no doubt. I continued under the impression which I have
above stated, until the conversation about his will, which I have
above stated, in which conversation Mr. Stewart estimated his
estate so much lower than I did, as to change my opinion mate
rially on the subject. My present impression is, that the per
sonal estate of Robert Stewart, including the bonds and mort
gages executed by Lispenard Stewart, was not worth, at the
time of his death, over one hundred thousand dollars, after the
payment of his debts.
Q. Do you think that in the estimate you made of the real
estate of Robert Stewart, you placed it at its real value?
A. I estimated it at as much as I thought it would bring in
the market at that time, and at as much as I would have been
willing to have given for it had I been desirous of purchas
ing it.
Adjourned to Tuesday morning next, 10 o'clock.
Tuesday, September 26, 1843. The further examination of
Mr. Sandford suspended by agreement.
Oct. 3. The cross examination of Mr. Sandford.
Q. Was Robert Stewart, at or previous to the execution of

31
his last will and testament, under any restraint of any nature or
kind, to the best of your knowledge ?
A. Not in the least, to my knowledge.
Q. For how many years previous to his death had you been
in the habit of confidential intercourse with him?
A. I was well acquainted with Robert Stewart about twenty-
seven years, and for upwards of twenty years in the habit of
confidential intercourse with him.
Q. What was the state of his mind, and his capacity for bu
siness during that time ?
A. Considerably above mediocrity. Robert Stewart was un
questionably a man of great sagacity, of great reflection, and of
much more than ordinary strength of mind.
Q. Was there any perceptible difference in his mental facul
ties at the time of the execution of his last will, compared with
the time of the execution of his will, shortly after the death of
Mr. Alexander L. Stewart, or prior thereto ?
A. I think his mind and judgment, at the time of the execu
tion of his present will, were as sound as they ever were. From
the death of Alexander Stewart until May, 1842, I saw Robert
Stewart generally every morning, except Sundays. When I
was in town, my residence at that period was in his immediate
neighborhood, and he was in the habit of calling on me at an
early hour every day in relation to his business. In May, 1842,
I removed to Warren-street ; and after that his calls upon me
were less frequent ; but I continued to see him down to his last
illness two or three times a week ; and from all these opportu
nities I speak with great confidence as to his mental capacity
during this whole period.
Q. Did he at the time of his death, or had he for some time
previous thereto^ lived with his wife, and upon what terms were
they? A. They had not been on good terms for many years. Mr.
Stewart had been for many years under the belief that she en
tertained feelings hostile to his interest, and was not disposed to
do any thing for her more than duty required. He lived prin
cipally at his office — took his meals there — and a great part
of his time slept there ; and going to the house where she re-

32
sided only for the purpose of preventing her from saying that
he had abandoned her. In the first will, which I have spoken
of in this examination, he left her only two hundred and fifty
dollars a. year; and although frequently urged by me to in
crease considerably the provision intended for' her, he refused to
make it exceed three hundred dollars, the amount expressed in
the present will.
Q. If the claim involved in the controversy relating to the
estate of Alice Lispenard, deceased, should ultimately be estab
lished, what will be the effect thereof upon the real estate of
which Alexander L. Stewart died seized, and upon the title to
the thirty-two lots of land, mentioned in your direct examina
tion? A. If the will of Alice Lispenard and the conveyance made
by her, which is in controversy, should be set aside, it will affect
one-sixteenth of the whole estate left by Anthony Lispenard.
These thirty-two lots form a part of that estate, and the title to
these lots would be affected to the extent of one-sixteenth part.
Q. Besides the effect upon the title of these thirty-two lots,
would the estate of Robert Stewart be exposed to loss or lia
bility in other respects, if that controversy should be decided in
favor of the claimants?
A. It would be exposed to a very serious and probably to a
ruinous litigation ; partly from covenants of warranty, which
would no doubt be put in suit, and partly from proceedings in
partition, in which the parties would be so numerous as to cause
great expense and probably much litigation.
Q. What was the state of the controversy above referred to,
at the time of the execution of the last will and testament of
Robert Stewart and at the time of his death?
A. One of the suits in ejectment, brought by the children of
Theophilact Lispenard upon one of these lots, had been tried
and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs. Under numerous excep
tions taken on the part of the defendant, Robert Stewart, at the
time of his death, it had been decided to apply under the statute
to vacate the judgment entered upon that verdict, and to have a
new trial in the Superior Court.
Q. Was any person, and whom, present, at the time of the

33
execution of the last will and testament, besides the testator and
the subscribing witnesses ?
A. After Mr. Gerring was sent for to come and witness the
will, Mr. Stewart sent in for Lispenard Stewart, who came into
the room and was present when the will was executed. Imme
diately after the execution of the will, Mr. Robert Sewart
handed it to him, and he was the only person present to the best
of my recollection, besides the testator and the subscribing
witnesses. Q. When Mr. Robert Stewart, handed the will to Lispenard
Stewart, or at any other time within your knowledge, did the
testator declare or intimate that it was subject to, or in any man
ner connected with, any trust, expressed or implied?
A. I never heard any thing of the sort.
CHAS. W. SANDFORD.
Sworn before me this 3rd day of October, 1843.
David B. Ogden.
William B. Gerring, a witness, produced, sworn and ex
amined in support of the will, deposes and says : I was ac
quainted with the deceased, Robert Stewart, from April, 1835,
to the time of his death. I was during the whole of that period
a clerk in his office — first with Alexander L. Stewart, and after
his death, with Robert Stewart. The will being shown to him,
he says he was present at its execution. I saw Robert Stewart,
execute it ; I saw him sign it, and heard him acknowledge it to
be his last will and testament. He called me into the office
and asked me to witness his will. I subscribed my name as a
witness to the will, and I saw Mr. Sandford subscribe his name
to it as a witness, in the presence of the testator. I believe Mr.
Stewart was eighty-one years old when the will was executed,
and of a perfect, sound mind, and was under no restraint, not
the slightest, that I ever perceived. On the morning the will
was executed, I was sent for to my boarding house. Mr.
Price, a clerk in the office, came for me. At the time the will
was executed, Mr. Stewart had been confined to the house for
two or three weeks ; I think in consequence of an injury to one
of his feet. He had a sore on one of his feet, which obliged
5

34
him to keep his foot upon a chair. I do not know whether the
sore was occasioned by an injury or not. He told me, on the
morning of the election, in April, when he asked one of us to
go up to the polls with him, that he had hurt his foot ; with
the exception of this sore on his foot, I believe his health was
good. During the whole time of his confinement, he continued
to transact business down to the day of his death, with the ex
ception of one day. I never knew any change in his capacity to
transact business. This was three or four weeks before his
death. When I came to the office that day, a cot had been
brought into the back office ; he was lying on it, and his mind
seemed to wander a little. Mrs. Stewart, and I think Mr. Lispe
nard, were in the room, standing by his bedside, and requesting
him to take some nourishment, and some wine; he objected to
it, as he thought it would keep up the inflammation in his foot;
he did, however, that day, take some nourishment and drink
some wine, and in the afternoon, he said he felt better. The
next day, when I went to the office, I found him seiting in his
chair and his mind appeared to be the same as usual. From
that time he continued to drink a little wine during the day,
and took more nourishing food, and I did not discover that his
mind was affected from that time to the day of his death. On
the particular day I have mentioned, he was very weak ; he had
until that day, ate very little, and had discontinued taking wine
for sometime before he was confined to the house, and was very
much reduced. During all the time I was in the office, both
before and after the death of Alexander L. Stewart, he took an
active part in the business. My engagement was both with
Alexander Stewart and with Robert Stewart ; my contract was
with Alexander ; but I was also to do anything which Robert
Stewart requested me to do. Mr. Robert Stewart was always
in the office when I went there in the morning, with Mr. Alex
ander Stewart in the back office ; they breakfasted together there.
He remained in the office until generally about ten o'clock, and
during the time he was in the office, he appeared to take, and
did take, as much interest in the business, as Mr. Alexander
Stewart. Alexander, when conversing on business with persons
in the back office, would always come into the front office and

35
consult with Robert, in relation to the business, and then return
to the back office, to the persons he had been talking with.
Alexander, seldom, if ever, did any business without consulting
Robert. After A'exander died, Robert took the entire charge,
and did so to the day of his death. Mr. Alexander Stewart,
during his life, was the acting man in the business ; but he hardly
ever did any business without first taking the advice and coun
sel of Robert Stewart. Robert was more in the office than
Alexander, who was in bad health, and used to ride and walk
out a good deal.
Q. What was the character of the mind of Robert Stewart ?
(This question objected to ; objection overruled.)
A. His mind was strong. I speak of his mind, generally,
with the exception of the day I have mentioned, and I speak
from an almost daily intercourse with him, for a period of more
than eight years. Robert Stewart died on the 26th of June
last ; I was present at his death.
WM. B. GERRING.
Sworn before me this 3rd day of October, 1843.
David B. Ogden.
November 2ith, 1843.
Timothy Toole, a witness* produced, sworn, and examined
by Mr. J. W. Webb, in opposition to the will, at the time of the
death of Mr. Robert Stewart. I was employed by him as a
servant about the house; I was in the habit of serving him
very frequently during his last illness.
Q. Did you receive from any person, and from whom, instruc
tions to conceal his illness from the public?
A. I received no such instructions.
Q. What were your instructions in relation to speaking
about Mr. Stewart's illness ?
A. I had not any instructions at all.
Q. Were you not told by any of the family that you must not
mention Mr. Stewart's illness to any body out of the house ?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Did you believe Mr. Stewart to be dangerously ill, until
the day before his death ?
* In support of J. W. Webb's published slanders — see Appendix, Letter C.

36
A. I did not believe that he would live very long, but I did
not think there was any immediate danger.
Q. Did the family apprise you that he was dangerously. ill,
or did they lead you to suppose that his life was not in danger ?
A. They never apprised me anything about it. I did not
know what they may have thought.
Q. Have you ever said that you were led to believe from the
family that he was not very sick ?
(Question overruled.)
Q. Did any member of ths family ever speak to you in rela
tion to the nature of Mr. Stewart's illness, or caution you against
speaking of it to persons out of the house ?
A. No sir.
TIMOTHY TOOLE.
Sworn before me this2ith November, 1843.
David B. Ogden.
December 1st, 1843.
Walter W. Webb, a witness produced, sworn, and exam
ined by James W. Webb, in opposition to the will deposes and
says :
Q. Have you ever had any conversation with Lispenard
Stewart, in relation to the will of Robert Stewart deceased, and
in relation to the circumstances under which it was procured?
A. In the month of July last, walking with Lispenard Stew
art from his house to Warren-street, to the office, as I understood,
of Gen. Sandford, he told me that Mr. Stewart was induced
to change his will for the purpose of making Mrs. Stewart
a witness ; and I said I supposed to make my brother a witness
too. He said no, he did not want my brother, that he had
done more hurt than good before.* He said that it was some
time before Mr. Stewart could be convinced of the necessity of
changing his will, and when he was convinced of it, he became
impatient until it was done. He said he intended to give
the property to his sisters. I told him if that was the case,
he had better do it at once. That if he meant to give my
brother's wife anything, he could now settle it at once, and it
might be secured to her, whereas if the will was set aside and
* Henry L. Webb, next witness, testifies the exact reverse, as said by Lis
penard Stewart

37
any misfortune should happen to my brother, his wife might
lose the whole benefit of the property. He said my brother
had had his portion of the estate. I then gave him to under
stand that I had been informed, that the sum of twenty thous
and dollars, charged against my brother or his wife, was an
original debt against Mr. Skillman,* somehow on account of
a newspaper called the Courier, and that Mrs. Webb ought not
to be charged with it. Mr. Lispenard Stewart told me that he
had taken advice from an eminent lawyer other than Mr.
Sandford, and that he was advised to pursue the course he had
taken ; and that he should continue to do so notwithstanding
anything that my brother could or intended to do. He also
said that he could do with his own property as he pleased, and
that he intended himself to leave his sister Helen, my brother's
wife, ten thousand dollars.
Q. Did he say anything to you, and what, as to the manner
in which Mr. Stewart first received the proposition to change
his will?
A. I think that he said to me that we persuaded him to change
his will ; that at first he was unwilling to do it, and that he did
not consent to do it until we convinced him that it was neces
sary in order to enable us to avail ourselves of the testimony of
Mrs. Stewart.
Q. Did he state in what case it was necessary to secure the
testimony of Mrs. Stewart?
A. It was in those suits depending brought by the heirs of
Alice Lispenard, deceased.
(The Witness being cross examined by Gen. Sandford, the
counsel supporting the will.)
Q. What relation are you to James Watson Webb ?
A. I am his brother.
Q. Are you in his employment, or receiving a salary, income,
or support from him?
A. My brother James owes me twenty-six thousand five hun
dred dollars. I hold his bond guaranteed by good personal
security. I am in no way interested in the matter now in con
troversy, and I appear here with great reluctance. I receive the
* J. W. Webb assumed $6,850 of such debt, and received, in return, the
paper and all its properties.

38
interest on my bond from him, if this can be called income. I
am not in his employment.
Q. How soon after this conversation with Lispenard Stewart
did you detail it to your brother James ?
A. I do not know that ever I detailed it to him. I will ex
plain the circumstances. I had mentioned it at Troy, but the
first time I detailed it to my brother James was when I first
came down as a witness in this case.
Q. Did you not go to Mr. Stewart's at the time of the conver
sation you have mentioned, or at any other time, by request of
your brother James ?
A. No.
Q. Nor upon his intimation ?
A. At the time I had this conversation with Lispenard Stew
art, I do not know that my brother knew I was going there ;
but subsequently, at the time I was here as a witness, I told my
brother I was going there to see Mary and the family. He told
me he had made a proposition to Mr. Stewart through Gen. Sand
ford, and he wished me to tell Mr. Stewart what the proposition
was, lest he might not get it in time before the examination be
fore the Surrogate. When I went to Mr. Stewart's I did not
see Mr. Lispenard Stewart; I saw Mr. Charles Stewart and his
wife. Q. Did you, on the day of the conversation you have first
stated, go to Mr. Stewart's at the suggestion of your brother
Henry L.Webb?
A. No ; nor on the suggestion of any other person.
Q. Did Mr. Stewart, in that conversation, speak of the large
amount of money which was due to him from his uncle Robert
Stewart ?
A. I had heard of it before, and I knew that Robert Stewart
was indebted to his nephew Lispenard, and I think Lispenard
spoke of it in this conversation.
Q. Did Lispenard speak of his anxiety to secure the payment
of this debt ?
A. I think not.
Q. Did he speak about the execution of a deed by Robert
Stewart ?

39
A. I think not.
Q. Was any person in company with you and Lispenard
during the walk and conversation?
A. No, sir.
Q. At what time of day or evening was it that you left Mr.
Stewart's house that day ?
A. I think it was in the forenoon.
Q. What members of Mr. Stewart's family were present when
you left the house?
A. Mrs. Charles Stewart and Eliza Stewart were present, I
know. Mary may have been there, I cannot be sure.
Q. Did Mr. Stewart in that conversation say that he knew
anything of the present will before the day of its execution ?
A. He did not say that he knew anything about it.
Q. Did Mr. Stewart in that conversation speak of his own
knowledge as to the motives or intentions of Robert Stewart, or
on information which he had derived from others ?
A. I inferred that he spoke from his own knowledge.
Q. Did Mr. Stewart in that conversation say that he had ever
conversed with Robert Stewart in relation to his will ?
A. No ; not in so many words.
Q. Did he say in any words that he had ever conversed with
his uncle about his will ?
A. I inferred that he had, from his using the word " we," as I
had before stated.
Q. What were the words used by him?
A. As I have stated before, I cannot remember the very words.
He said, " We persuaded or convinced him thatit was necessary
to change the will for the purpose of availing ourselves of the
testimony of Mrs. Stewart."
Q. Did he say, " we persuaded or convinced him" or did he
say, "he was persuaded or convinced?"
A. I think he used the word " we."
Q. Is not your memory, as you have experienced this morning,
in endeavoring to recall to it facts and circumstances, very un
certain and confused, or is it a strong and tenacious one ?
A. My impressions are strong, and I think I have detailed all
the facts. My memory is certainly not so confused and uncer

40
tain as not to enable me to detail the circumstances which I
have done. My memory is of ordinary tenacity.
Q. When speaking of Mr. Skillman's interest in the debt con
tracted for the Courier newspaper, did you speak of it as twelve
thousand or twenty thousand dollars?
A. I spoke of it as a debt of twenty thousand dollars.
(The Witness being again examined on direct examination.)
Q. Have you any doubt in your mind whether Mr. Lispenard
Stewart, in the conversation referred to, used the word " we,"
alluding to the persons who persuaded Mr. Robert Stewart to
change his will ?
A. I have no doubt upon that point.
(The witness being again cross examined.)
Q. Why then, in your previous examination, both direct and
cross, did you speak of its being your impression, and that you
thought he used the word "we," instead of testifying positively ?
A. My impression is so strong that I cannot doubt it.
Q. Is your memory so accurate that you can repeat words
used in conversation after the lapse of several months ?
A. I can repeat the substance.
WALTER W. WEBB.
Sworn before me this 1st December, 1843.
David B. Ogden.
Deposition of witnesses produced, sworn, and examined, the
thirteenth day of December, in the year eighteen hundred and
forty-three, at New-Orleans, under and by virtue ofa commis
sion issued by and under the official seal of the Surrogate of
the County of New-York, in a certain matter of the last will
and testament of Robert Stewart, deceased, pending before the
Surrogate of the County of New- York, as follows, viz:
Henry L. Webb, of the city of New-Orleans, merchant,
aged forty-eight years and upwards, being duly and publicly
sworn, pursuant to the directions contained or annexed to said
above commission, and examined on the part of James Watson
Webb, doth depose and say as follows, viz :
To the first interrogatory he answers and says, that his name
is Henry L. Webb — that his age is forty-eight years — his resi-

41
dence is in New-Orleans — his profession is a commission mer
chant. To the second interrogatory he answers and says, that he did
know the late Robert Stewart of New- York in his lifetime, and
that he is acquainted with Mr. Lispenard Stewart, the nephew
of the deceased ; that he knew him in New-York, and has been
acquainted with him since the fall of 1833.
To the third interrogatory he answers and says, that the said
Lispenard Stewart did converse with him on the subject of
making and executing the supposed last will and testament of
Robert Stewart, deceased, at his house in Hudson-street, in the
city of New- York, on the twenty-first day of July last past, in
the evening.
To the fourth interrogatory he answers and says, that on the
evening of the 21st day of July last, he called at the house where
the Stewart family reside, in Hudson-street, in the city of New-
York, to see Mrs. Mary J. Webb, the wife of his brother Ste
phen H. Webb, he having learned during the day that she was
to leave the city the next morning for Troy ; that he had heard
of a difficulty between his brother, James Watson Webb, and
Lispenard Stewart, and should not have visited the house had
it not been to have seen said Mrs. Webb, whom he had not seen
for fifteen years. Soon after he was in the house, Mr. Lispe
nard Stewart, or one of his sisters, began to converse with him
about the family quarrel, when he requested them to desist, tel
ling them he tknew a difficulty existed between them and his
brother, James Watson Webb, but that he could not interfere or
interest himself in the matter ; adding, that he had only come
to see his sister Mary, as he understood she was to leave the city
next morning, and not to interfere in their family difficulties : that
Mr. Lispenard Stewart and his sisters unanimously, he thinks,
begged he would hear his (Lispenard's) statement ; and to in
duce him to do so, told him that he {Lispenard Stewart) had
received that day a communication from James Watson Webb,
threatening that unless he complied with his demands, as con
tained in that letter,* he woulL publish in the Courier 8f En-
* The letter, referred to by the witness, was not in existence at the time of this
pretended conversation about it. It was not written till the next day, and its
demands are predicated on the very report of this interview. See the letter, p. 47.
6

42
quirer of the next morning a statement of the whole business
and difficulties. He also stated to the witness, as a further in
ducement to listen to his story, that J. Watson Webb had given
him no time to consult with his friends ; and as a farther rea
son, that the witness could possibly act as a peace-maker, and
having influence with his brother J. Watson Webb, could pre
vail on him to suspend the contemplated publication until Lis
penard Stewart's counsel could return from the country ; add
ing, that not only his, counsel, but also his brothers-in-law, were
absent, and tha he had none to consult with or advise him; and
that he did not think it was right to force him to decide with so
little advice. On reflection, and under these circumstances, and
thus urged, the witness agreed to hear his statement ; and he
began by saying, that 3. Watson Webb had accused him of in
ducing his uncle Robert to alter his will for the purpose of
cheating his sisters out of the estate. He stated that his own
income was more than twenty thousand dollars per annum,
which the witness knew he did not spend ; that his children
were provided for, and that he could have no inducement to
defraud his sisters ; that the witness probably knew that for
years they had had difficulty with his, Lispenard Stewart's, fath
er's estate, (meaning Alexander L. Stewart;) and for the better
securing his property to his children, he, the said Alexander L.
Stewart, had made his brother Robert the sole heir to his estate ;
a few days after the death of his said father Alexander, his un
cle, Robert Stewart, made a will, in which he gave all his estate,
both real and personal, to him, Lispenard Stewart, and his sis
ters, to be shared equally ; that this will remained unaltered un
til a short period before Robert Stewart's death : that James
Watson Webb, and his sister Sarah Stewart, were the principal
witnesses in the late law-suit which is now going to the Court
of Errors; and being anxious to have their testimony, he found,
on consultation with his counsel, that their testimony could not
be admitted whilst they remained as heirs to the estate, which
they were as the will then stood, as it made them interested
parties : that he then went, with his counsel and sisters, to his
uncle Robert,* and told him that unless he altered his will and
* See deposition of Mrs. and Miss Stewart on this point, p. 50.

43
gave him (Lispenard Stewart) all the estate, the testimony of J.
Watson Webb, and his sister Sarah Stewart, could not be ad
mitted in the above law-suit : that his uncle Robert appeared
thunderstruck and alarmed at this information, and agreed to
alter his will. He (Lispenard Stewart) pledging himself to car
ry out the wishes and intentions of his father and his uncle
Robert Stewart, and that he would hold the estate in trust for
the joint benefit of his sisters ; and that his uncle Robert ap
peared anxious until the new will was completed; that the
present will was then made in Ins, Lispenard Stewart's, favor ;
and thai he intended honestly and to the best of his ability to
settle the estate, and ho'd it in trust for the benefit of all his sis
ters ; that he did not intend to take one dollar of that estate for
himself; that the estate at that time owed him fifty thousand
dollars, and that he had in his will given to each of his sisters ten
thousand dollars, comprising or being the amountof this debt. Af
ter the conversation as detailed above, the witness visited his broth
er James Watson Webb, at his office, it being then about 10 P. M.,
and did so at the request of Lispenard Stewart, "to know if he
would suspend the publication."* The brother of the witness
told him that in his letter to Mr. Lispenard Stewart he had
made a proposal that would settle all difficulties, and which
was to settle on his wife, Mrs. Helen L. Webb, fifty thousand
dollars, or one-sixth of the estate ; she to have the income of it
during her life, and at her death, the property to go to her
children. The witness then returned to Lispenard Stewart and
reported what his brother had said ;f and Mr. Stewart then ask
ed the witness to suggest what was the best course for him to
pursue. The witness then suggest d that Mr. Stewart should
make a just and correct estimate of the real intrinsic value of
the estate, and deduct any debts it might owe, and see how
much each one's share would be, and after deducting from the
share of Mrs. Helen L. Webb the debt which he (Lispenard
Stewart) had informed the witness, J. Watson Webb, owed, to
* See deposition before referred to, p. 50.
f Witne here again testi ties to a conversation about a letter not in existence
at the time, but written and sent to Lispenard Stewart the next day. The let
ter is altogether based on the pretended statements of Mr. Stewart at this only
interview between him and the witness;. See the letter, p. 47.

44
give an obligation to secure to the said Mrs. Helen L. Webb
the amount that would then be remaining, in the mode pro
posed by the brother of the witness ; — that the said Lispenard
Stewart appeared pleased and satisfied with this plan, and the
witness thought, would make the arrangement, but his sister,
Mrs. Sarah Stewart, objected, and told him to do nothing in a
hurry, and by no means to put anything in writing, as J. Wat
son Webb would take advantage of it; and to do nothing
without consulting his counsel; — that this appeared to deter
mine him to do as she recommended ; — that both Mr. Stewart
and his sisters appeared worried at the threatened publication,
and requested witness to use his influence with his brother to
suspend it ; and he authorised ivitness to say to his brother
that if he would suspend the publication, he would communi
cate with him after the arrival of his counsel* after he had seen
and consulted with him. Witness thinks it was Gen. Sandford
he said he wished to see and consult with. The witness prom
ised to use his influence with his brother to suspend the publi
cation, and went again to his brother's office, who did agree to
suspend the publication until Mr. Stewart could see Gen. Sand
ford ; and then returned to Mr. Stewart's house, in Hudson-
street, to communicate his success to the family, as they had
requested him to do, it being then near midnight. *
To the fifth interrogatory he answers and says, that he did
make a memorandum of the conversation with Lispenard Stew
art, referred to in his answer to the fourth interrogatory ; — that
on the morning after the said conversation, he was relating it
to his sister-in-law, Mrs. Helen L. Webb, the wife of J. Watson
Webb, when the latter entered the room, and after listening to
what the witness was repeating to Mrs. Webb, he asked the wit
ness if he had any objection to put in writing what had taken
place in the conversation with Mr. Lispenard Stewart the pre
ceding evening ;f and the witness replied that he was willing to
do so, and commenced writing in the room, and when he had
partly finished, his brother requested him to be very particular,
* See the deposition of Mrs. Stewart and sister.
f Compare this account of the time and circumstances of making the mem
orandum with that of J. W. Webb's letter, p. 47.

45
and give the very words of Mr. Stewart, or as near as possible ;
— that he stopped writing and went down to the office of the
Courier and Enquirer, where his brother went into his private
office, and the witness remained in the outer room, where he
completed the memorandum, the original of which he now pro
duces, in the exact state as it was then prepared, and is annexed
hereto, marked A, dated New-York, 22d July, 1843, signed by
the witness. He also says that the additional memorandums
on the same paper, the one signed by Jane H. Averill, Walter W.
Webb, and C. L. Webb, and the other signed by H. Averill, were
added thereto at the time and place they respectively bear date ;
that after writing and signing the said memorandum, he showed
it to his brother, J.Watson Webb, who took a copy of it, and re
turned him the original.
To the sixth interrogatory he answers in the negative.
To the first cross interrogatory he answers and says, that he
is the brother of James Watson Webb.
To the second cross interrogatory he answers and says, that he
called at the house of Lispenard Stewart at his own instance
only, and not at the request or instance of any other person ;
and that his motive and inducement for calling was to see Mrs.
Mary L. Webb, as mentioned in his answer to the fourth direct
interrogatory ; — that he called without the previous knowledge
of his brother, James Watson Webb; — that he never pretended
to Lispenard Stewart that he was ignorant that difficulties ex
isted between him and his family, with his brother, J. Watson
Webb, but that he was ignorant of the particulars of said diffi
culties until related to him (as already detailed) by said Lispe
nard Stewart; — that he only knew generally and from the
public notoriety of the f;tct, that Robert Stewart had disinherited
his nieces, as their father, Alexander L. Stewart, had previously
done ; — that his visit at the north, after a protracted absence of
some years, to see his friends and for the general benefit of his
health, which he stated at the time of the interview to Lispenard
Stewart, telling him at the same time he did not wish to inter
fere or take any part in the family difficulties, and that it was
only at the earnest request of said Lispenard Stewart that he
consented to listen to his details and conversation on the sub
ject, at the time of visiting his house on the 21st July, 1843.

46
To the third cross interrogatory he answers and says, that he
made no proposal to Lispenard Stewart to pay, or to offer or
to authorise him to offer, J. WatsonWtbb any sum. of money
or other compensation, except as detailed in his answer to the
fourth direct interrogatory,* and that was done merely as a sug
gestion in reply to a request of Lispenard Stewart, that the
witness should suggest to him what he thought was the best
course to pursue.
To the fourth cross interrogatory he answers and says, that
in his interview with Lispenard Stewart the latter was about to
make some proposition, and the witness took out his pencil to
make a memorandum of it, in order to avoid mistake or misun
derstanding, as Mr. Stewart had requested him to be very par
ticular in anything he snid to James Watson Webb as coming
from said Stewart; — that he does not recollect whether he
wrote down anything at the time, but if he did, it must have
been only a few words, as Mrs. Sarah Stewart at once objected
to putting anything on paper ; — that he had no intention at the
time, nor did he write down any of the conversation with Lis
penard Stewart in his presence or during the interview, nor has
he subsequently written or made any memorandum of said in
terview or conversation with said Lispenard Stewart other than
as referred to and detailed in his answer to the fifth direct inter
rogatory. To the fifth cross interrogatory he answers and says, that
James Watson Webb did not assist in writing, altering, or dic
tating, the memorandum referred to in his answer to the fifth
direct interrogatory, otherwise than merely requesting him to
put down the exact words of Lispenard Stewart, as near as he
could recollect them. J. Watson WTebb and his wife were
present, when the witness commenced writing the said memo
randum at the house of said J. W. Webb; but he is not certain
if any one was present when he completed writing the memo.
randum at the office of the Courier and Enquirer; though Mr.
Daniels, or Mr. Morrell, might have come in whilst he was
writing; but that he had no intercourse or communication with
any one on the subject of said memorandum, further than as
already declared by him.
* See depositions of Mrs. and Miss Stewart, above referred to, p. 50.

47
To the sixth cross interrogatory he answers and says, that
Mrs. Mary J. Webb, Mrs. Sarah Stewart, and Miss Stewart, all
sisters of Lispenard Stewart, were present at the conversation
alluded to ; that the interview and conversation took place at
the house of said Lispenard Siewart, in Hudson-street, in the
city of New- York, on the 2lst day of July, 1813, and that it
continued from about 7 P. M. till near or quite midnight, in
cluding the time spent in visiting his brother at his office, at the
request of Lispenard Stewart.
To the seventh cross interrogatory he answers and says, that
he saw his brother J. Watson Webb, in the course of the day in
which he had the conversation with Lispenard Stewart; but
when or how long before he went to the house of said Stewart,
he is unable to recollect; but thinks it was "probably" at din
ner time the conversation was repeated to J. Webb, at the time
and manner as detailed in his answer to the fourth and fifth
direct interrogatories.
Henry L. Webb.
Examination taken, reduced to writing, and by the witness
subscribed and sworn to, at Neio-Orleans, this 13th day of
December, 1843.
Wm. L Hodge, \
James M. Wray, > Commissioners.
L. C. Duncan, J

Letter of J. W. Webb, referred to in the preceding testimony.
New- York, July 22, 1843.
To Mr. Lispenard Stewart :
Sir — My brother, Henry L. Webb, called upon me last eve
ning, and related the conversation which he had heldwith you
in regard to the document which you call the last will of Mr.
Robert Stewart. / immediately requested him, to reduce to
writing your explanation of the mode in which that document
was procured, which of course he did.*
* Compare this account of the time of making the memorandum with that
given by Henry L Webb in the preceding testimony.

48
I enclose you a copy ; and if you will take it to your " three
lawyers" for inspection, they will, if they are not both knaves
and fools, tell you at once, that it will be idle in you now, to at
tempt to sustain your will if 1 oppose it. His testimony alone,
finally and conclusively disposes of the whole controversy.
1 now propose to withdraw all opposition to the so called
will being admitted to probate, on condition that you will at
once settle upon Helen the sum of fifty thousand dollars, or the
one-sixth part of the estate — she to have the income of it dur
ing her lifetime, and at her death the whole sum to be divided
among her children. In the event of her dying before her
youngest child shall reach the age of tioenty-one years, I to re
ceive the income until that period, and then the principal to be
divided as above. I to name the trustee, whose duty it shall
be to invest the trust money in such securities as we may joint
ly direct in writing, or as the survivor may direct, in like man
ner. If you think my testimony of value in the Lispenard will
case, it is your interest to make the settlement without refer
ence to the estate, as I could then swear, that I had no interest
directly or indirectly in the estate, at the same time I would be
directly in the recovery by the plaintiff, against whom I would
be testifying. This would render my testimony all important.
You have the assent in writing of all the other heirs, to your
will going to probate ; and as by this act they abandoned me,
I, in my turn, abandon them to your " tender mercies." Thus
the withdrawal of my opposition, settles the whole question,
and the will goes to probate, unless, indeed, I am forced to pub
lish our correspondence on Tuesday, when the knowledge of
the conditions upon which the will was made, will equally en
able your uncle Robert's widow, or any other person, to
break it.
In conclusion, be advised even by me. For once in your
life, act promptly and from your own judgment and convictions
of what is proper. A member of the bar told me yesterday, that
about the time of the last trial, your uncle Robert called on him
and gave him $100, and told him that he wanted to get rid of
Sandford, who had received from him at different times, on ac-

49
count of the Alice Lispenard will alone, more than eight thous
and dollars !* Comment is unnecessary.
You have now to decide, and that too, promptly, whether you
will force me to make the publication on Tuesday, and then in
addition, to have the will rejected by the Surrogate, or whether,
complying with my terms, and using the documents signed by
the other heirs, you will at once enter into the quiet and peace
able possession of the estate, preserving my testimony, such as
it is, as to the capacity of Alice Lispenard to make a will. I
care not how you decide, but again warn you not to delay.
Your ob't serv't,
J. Watson Webb.
[After the incontestible proof, which a comparison of Henry
L. Webb's testimony and his brother's letter presents, that in two
separate instances he swears to the details of conversations on
the subject matter of a letter not in existence at the time,
and which letter itself, not written till the next day, predicates
its bold and large demands on one of those very pretended con
versations, is it uncharitable to say, that so gross an inaccuracy
of memory, with such evidence ofa lively imagination, throws
a doubt over the correctness of all to which he does testify ? We
think not. He saw Lispenard Stewart but the one evening, (this
the 21st of July,) and had no other interview with him, yet
swears that Lispenard Stewart then told him that he had received
a letter from J. W. Webb, and states its contents, which letter, as
is fully proved, was not in existence till the day after, the 22d,
and the demands in its contents never heard of till then! Is it
not possible — nay, is it not probable, that such a witness might,
and in this case did, apply in his recollections of a conversation
of two or three hours, what was said, and is true, of a Deed to
secure a debt, to what it is known never could have been said,
or if by any possibility it could, was utterly untrue in reference
to the Will, and to all the parties named in connexion with it.
One word here in regard to this letter of J. W. Webb. We

* J. W. Webb well knew that this was untrue, and that the whole expense
of the litigation through all the courts, including the fees of all the counsel
employed therein, as well as the costs of court, only amounted to this sum.
7

50
see in it the[price at which he estimates his testimony in the
Lispenard Will Case: whatever others may think of it, he
values it at $50,000 ! While he here proclaims his own testi
mony all-important, we would call to mind the baseness of
using the columns of his own newspaper on the 27th of July,
1843, as he did, to pass an invidious judgment upon that of ano
ther witness in the same case, and that witness an inobtrusive
and unoffending relative, justly appreciated by every one who
knows her, in all ranks of society: yet thus subjected, in the
publicity of a print at his control, to his epithets of reproach. To
give weight to that invidious judgment, he puts it in the mouth
of one of the most eminent and honorable of the members of the
bar, from whom he asserts that he received it. The name of
that gentleman, furnished to me, is concealed, (as is much of
the scurrility of the abusive manuscript sent with it,) under as
terisks, in the columns of his newspaper ; and that with good
reason, for that gentleman, his own counsel — Prescott Hall,
Esq. — utterly denies the truth of it, did so to J. W. Webb, in
the hearing of others, in the Surrogate's Court, and I doubt not
will do so again, in any and every place in which it may be
asserted.] BEFORE THE SURROGATE OP NEW- YORK.
In the matter of the Probate \
of the last Will and Tes- f
tament of Robert Stew- £
art, deceased. 7
City and County of New- York, ss. : Sarah Stewart, of the
city of New- York, wife of Charles S. Stewart, and Eliza Stew
art, of the same city, gentlewomen, sisters of Lispenard Stewart,
of the same city, being duly sworn, do severally depose and
say, That they have heard read the deposition of Henry L. Webb,
as taken in the above Cause, under a commission to New-Or
leans, and that the statements made therein, as well as in the
paper signed by said Webb, and annexed to the said deposition,
are, in every material matter, wholly and entirely untrue.

51
That these deponents were present during the whole conver
sation between said Henry L. Webb and said Lispenard Stew
art, at the time referred to in his deposition, and both took part
in said conversation, and they severally depose and say, that
said Lispenard Stewart did not, in such conversation, make any
statements whatsoever to said Webb, or in his presence, of hav
ing urged his uncle, or held out any inducements or promises
to his uncle, to change his will, or anything^to that effect.
And these deponents further say, that it is untrue that these
deponents, with or without said Lispenard Stewart, ever went
to said Robert Stewart, to induce him to alter his will — and if
any statement to that effect had been made in their hearing,
they would have corrected it.
And these deponents further say, that during said conversa
tion, the said Lispenard Stewart did speak of his uncle owing to
him a large amount of money, for which he had little or no
security, and that he hud urged him to secure it, and had in
duced his sister, Mrs. Stewart, and his brother-in-law, Mr.
Charles Stewart, and his counsel, Mr. Sandford, to urge him to
secure said debt, which was the only statement made by said
Lispenard Stewart on that occasion, in respect to any influence
used by him with his uncle, and which statement so made by
said Lispenard Stewart is true.
And these deponents further say, that it is utterly untrue that
said Lispenard Stewart, or these deponents, requested said Hen
ry L. Webb to hear their statements respecting the difficulties
with J. Watson Webb, or that he requested them to desist from
speaking about them ; but on the contrary, he professed to be
ignorant of the difficulties in the family, and stated that he would
like to understand what could be done to settle the differences;
that he came as a friend, was in no way interested except to
make peace ; he was a friend to both sides, and wished some
thing could be done; he thought he could keep Watson from
publishing, and wished Lispenard to make some proposal. He
suggested several propositions for said Lispenard to make, and
finally said, he wished him to offer him $5000, or some other
sum: and repeatedly urged him to make some proposal, or to
authorize him to make some proposal. To which said Lispenard

52
Stewart invariably replied, that he would have nothing to do
with him — the said J. Watson Webb — and would give him
nothing, and that he might publish what he liked.
And these deponents further say, that it is also entirely false
that said Lispenard Stewart either urged or wished said Henry
L. Webb to go to said J. Watson Webb for any purpose ; but
on the contrary, persisted constantly in saying, that he would
offer him nothing, would give him nothing, and would have
nothing to do with him, and would not give him a single cent.
And these deponents also say, that it is untrue that they knew,
or were informed by said Henry L. Webb, that he was going
from their house to see said J. Watson Webb ; that after being
at their residence some time, he said he had an appointment with
a gentleman at the American Hotel, but he would return, as he
expected to meet his brother, Walter Webb, at deponents' house
that evening : that when he was about leaving, he was express
ly told by said Lispenard, that he did not wish him to see his
brother Watson as from him ; and said Henry declared he would
not : that he was gone some time, and when he returned, these
deponents suspected, from his conversation, he had in the mean
time seen J. Watson Webb, and upon said Lispenard Stewart
charging him with having, in his absence, been to see J. W.
Webb, he admitted he had seen him. Walter Webb did not call
that evening, and about ten o'clock, or soon after, said Henry L.
Webb went away, and did not return again that evening, as is
untruly stated in said deposition.
And these deponents also say, that it is untrue, that said
Henry L. Webb, on his return to their house, repeated to
them or said Lispenard Stewart, any such proposal from said
J. Watson Webb, as is stated in said deposition ; but on the
contrary, concealed having seen him until charged with having
done so by said Lispenard Stewart ; and the proposal of settling
$50,000 on Mrs. Helen Webb, as coming from J. Watson Webb,
was never heard of by these deponents, nor as they believe by
said Lispenard Stewart, until it was communicated by said J.
Watson Webb the next day in a letter to said Lispenard Stew
art, containing a copy of said Henry L. Webb's statement of
that evening's conversation; and threatening to oppose the will

53
on said statement of Henry L. Webb, unless Lispenard Stewart
would settle $50,000 on his wife.
That it is also untrue, that said Lispenard Stewart asked said
Henry L. Webb to propose any plan of settlement, or expressed
himself pleased with any plan proposed by said Webb, and that
so far from requesting him to urge his brother to suspend his
publication on any proposition from him, (said Lispenard,) these
deponents and said Lispenard Stewart were utterly surprised by
an assertion next day in the Courier & Enquirer, that such pub
lication was suspended at his request, said assertion, and every
thing in that respect contained in said deposition, being abso
lutely and unqualifiedly false.
SARAH A. STEWART,
ELIZA BARCLAY STEWART.
Sworn, this 2d January, 1844, before
F. R. Tillou, Alderman, &c.
The following is the memorandum of Henry L. Webb, re
ferred to in his testimony and the letter of J. W. Webb, of July
22,1843: " Mr. Lispenard Stewart last evening said to me, I wish to
explain to you how I am situated in regard to the estate of my
deceased father, Alexander L. Stewart, and my deceased uncle,
Robert Stewart, and what induced uncle Robert to alter his
will and make me his heir. My father, for the purpose of better
securing his property to his children, made uncle Robert his sole
heir. Uncle Robert, in a few days after the death of my father,
made a will, in which he gave all his estate, both real and per
sonal, to myself and sisters, to be shared equally. This will re
mained unaltered until a short period before his death. James
Watson Webb and sister Sarah Stewart were our principal
witnesses in the late law suit which is now going to the Court
of Errors. Being desirous of having their testimony, after con
sulting my counsel and my sisters, I found they could not be
admitted as witnesses if they remained heirs of the estate, (which
they were as the will then was,) being interested. I then, with
my counsel and sisters, went to uncle Robert and told him, that
unless he altered his will and gave the estate to me, that the

54
testimony of Watson and Sarah could not be admitted. He
was thunderstruck and greatly alarmed, and immediately con
sented, and appeared very anxious until the new will was com
pleted, I pledging myself to him that I would carry out the
wishes and intentions of him and my father, and hold it in
trust for the joint benefit of my sisters. Uncle Robert then
made the present will in my favor; and I intend honestly, and
to the best of my ability, to settle the estate and hold it in trust
for the joint benefit of all my sisters.
" HENRY L. WEBB."
[The following endorsement and signatures, which had been
entered upon the above memorandum of Henry L. Webb, was
at once pronounced inadmissible by the Court, and not allowed
to go upon the record. It was, of course, impracticable for the
devisee to introduce the rebutting testimony which he could
have exhibited. It forms no part of the record of the Court, but
J. W. Webb having published it as such, in the Courier and En
quirer, it is here also laid before the reader. Could the publisher
of this pamphlet persuade himself to make known the circum
stances in which that endorsement was made, the disguise of
purpose in the iulerview on which it is predicated, the secrecy
with which the signatures were affixed, and the outrage thus
perpetrated upon the rights of hospitality and the sanctity of pri
vate life, the reader would turn from it with incredulity if not
contempt. It is sufficient to say, that Mrs. Mary Webb never
knew or suspected at the time the existence of such a memoran
dum, or the giving of such endorsements.
As to the subject matter it involves, Mrs. Webb being now in
a distant State, it is not possible, without an undesirable delay
in the appearance of this publication, to secure by affidavit her
recollections of the original conversations between her brother
Lispenard and Henry L. Webb, or those of her interview with
the latter in Troy. This much, however, is certain and true,
that during the evening of Henry L. Webb's visit in Hudson-
street, on the 21st of July last, Mrs. Webb being herself much
occupied, and to leave town next morning, was absent from
(the parlor at different times, and heard detached parts only of

55
the conversation ; and that she repeatedly afterwards stated to
various members of her family, that on many points in which
Henry L.Webb had said that her brother Lispenard had said so
and so, she had corrected him and told him that it was not true.
Moreover, in a brief and hasty letter from Troy a day or two after
her arrival, and afteranotice in the Courier and Enquirer announ
cing the postponement of a threatened article at the request of
Lispenard Stewart, she thus writes: "I mentioned to them all
here my disapproval of Watson's course in attacking you all in
the paper, and that the statement in the Courier of Lispenard's
wishing Watson to put off the publication, was not true," — thus,
incidentally but positively contradicting, with her sister Mrs.
Charles Stewart, and Miss Stewart, one part of Henry L.Webb's
memorandum and testimony. Having thus her explicit denial
in writing to a part of the memorandum which Henry L. Webb
and the endorsers say she confirmed, the publisher is slow to be
lieve that either from inadvertence or want of recollection, she
understanding^ gave her assent to the correctness of the memo
randum on the record.] Troy, July 26th, 1842.
We, the undersigned, were present and heard Mrs. Mary J.
Webb say, that she was present and heard Mr. Lispenard
Stewart relate to Henry L. Webb, the conversation detailed in
the foregoing writing, signed by the said Henry L. Webb.
Jane H. Averell,
Walter W. Webb,
C. L. Webb.

July 26 th, 1843.
I was present this morning when Mr. H. L. Webb called the
attention of Mrs. Mary Webb to the conversation had between
said Henry and Mr. Lispenard Stewart. He detailed said con
versation substantially as is within written, and Mrs. Webb as
sented to its correctness.
H. Averell.

56
New-Orleans, Dec. 13th, 1843.
This is the paper referred to in my answer to the fifth direct
interrogatory.
Henry L. Webb.
WILL OF 1838.
In the name God, amen : I, Robert Stewart, of the City of
New- York, being of sound mind and memory, but considering
the uncertainty of life, do make and publish this my last Will
and Testament in manner following, hereby revoking all former
Wills by me made.
I will and devise to my nephew, Lispenard Stewart, my exec
utor hereinafter named, all my estate, whether real, personal, or
mixed, whatsoever and wheresoever, and whether in posses
sion, reversion, or remainder, one-sixth part thereof to be for his
own use and benefit ; one-sixth part thereof in trust for the use
of his sister, Helen L. Webb, (wife of James W. Webb,) less
seventeen thousand dollars, to be added in equal proportions to
the other five-sixth parts; one-sixth thereof in trust for the use
of his sister, Mary J. Webb, (wife of Stephen H. Webb ;) one-
sixth part thereof in trust for the use of his sister, Sarah A.
Stewart, (wife of Charles S. Stewart;) one-sixth part thereof in
trust for the use of his sister, Eliza B. Stewart ; and one-sixth
part thereof in trust for the use of his sister, Matilda W. Stew
art, and to the exclusion of any interference or control on the
part of any husband, which they or any cf them have or may
have, or liability for their debts. The income from the said
five-sixth parts, together with such portions of the principal
thereof as to the said Lispenard Stewart may seem necessary,
(deducting as aforesaid from the share of the said Helen L.
Webb,) to be applied to the use of the said several parties, at
such times and in such sums as he, the said Lispenard Stewart,
may determine. And in case of the death of any of his sisters
hereinbefore named, leaving lawful issue, I direct that the share
of such sister, or any balance thereof remaining, be equally di
vided amongst her children : and if any of them die without is
sue, I further direct that their share, or any balance remaining,
be equally divided amongst her surviving sisters, and the said

57
Lispenard Stewart, or the children of any of them which may
be deceased, per stipes and not per capita.
I will and bequeath to my wife, Sarah A. Stewart, during
her natural life and widowhood, two hundred and fifty dollars
per annum, to be paid to her by my said executor quarter year
ly, from my decease. But in the event of her raising any ques
tions, or commencing any suit in regard to any other pretended
rights, then and in such case I direct my said executor to stop
the payments to have been otherwise made to her under the pro
vision aforesaid.
And I hereby request and direct my friend, Richard Riker, of
the city of New- York, Esquire, or, in the event of his decease,
my friend, Abraham T. Hunter, of the said city, physician, the
trustees named in the last will and testament of my deceased
brother, Alexander L. Stewart, to execute and fulfil the trusts
therein named, upon the order and appointment of the said Lis
penard Stewart, my said executor, in the same manner to all in
tents and purposes, as if such order had been made by me in my
lifetime. And I hereby appoint the said Lispenard Stewart my sole ex
ecutor, to see the intention of this my last Will and Testament
faithfully done and executed, with full power and authority to
grant, bargain, sell, mortgage, and convey the whole orany part of
my estate which he may deem necessary for the purposes of this
my Will, and with further power to my said executor to appoint
by his last will and testament, such trustee or trustees as he may
elect, to execute and fulfil whatever trusts may remain unexecu
ted under this my Will.
[l. s.] Robert Stewart.
Signed, sealed, published, and declared by the said Robert
Stewart as and for his last Will and Testament, in the
presence of us who, at his request, in his presence, and
in presence of each other, have subscribed our names
as witnesses, this twentieth day of April, 1838, (thirty-
eight.) John R. Murray, No. 30 Laight-street, N. Y.
Wm. H. Hobart, No. 67 Prince-street, N. Y.
(Endorsed) Robert Stewart's Will, April 20th, 1838.
8

58
DECISION OF THE SURROGATE.
In the matter of proving the }
last Will and Testament of V Surrogate's Office, Jan. A, 1844.
Robert Stewart, deceased. \
After a careful examination of the evidence, I am of opinion
that this Will must be admitted to probate upon producing the
the usual proof of its custody.
DAVID B. OGDEN.

APPENDIX.

All the heirs at law of Mr. Robert Stewart, except J. W. Webb, gave a
unanimous verbal approval of his Will, on the evening of the 27th of June
last, the day after his death, and unitedly expressed to Lispenard Stewart their
wish for its immediate probate. It was afterwards determined to give this ap
proval in writing. Before the following paper was drawn, however, Mr. and
Mrs. Le Roy had gone to the country for the summer, and their written
approval was sent by letter. On their return to town for the winter, they an
nexed their signatures, with those of the rest, to the document here given.
A.
We, whose names are hereunto subscribed, being heirs at law and next of
kin of Robert Stewart, deceased, having investigated the situation of his es
tate, and being perfectly satisfied that his Will, bearing date the third day of
May, 1843, was the result of his unbiassed judgment ; and that the condition
of his estate has been fairly exhibited to us, do concur in the opinion that the
said Will should be admitted to probate without any opposition, and will not
ourselves oppose it.

New- York, July 13, 1843.

HELEN L. WEBB,
S. H. WEBB,
MARY J. WEBB,
C. S. STEWART,
SARAH A. STEWART,
ELIZA BARCLAY STEWART,
H. C. LE ROY,
MATILDA STEWART LE ROY.

Note B — page 25.
BEFORE THE SURROGATE OF NEW- YORK.

ig the ~l
ifnt of >
c'd. )

In the matter of proving
last Will and Testament ¦
Robert Stewart, dec'i
To Dacid B. Ogden, Esq., Surrogate of (he County of New-York:
The petition of Helen L. Webb, wife of James Watson Webb, of the city of
New-York, respectfully showeth —
That she is one of the heirs at law of Robert Stewart, late of said city, gen-

60
tleman, whose will is now before the Surrogate for probate. That 6he has
been informed and believes that an appearance has been entered in her name,
and counsel appeared on her behalf, in opposition to the probate of said will.
That such appearance has been made, and such opposition is contrary to her
wishes and intention, and that she has not authorised any person to appear for
her as probate or solicitor, and that she is not willing that said will shall be
opposed in her name.
Your petitioner therefore prays that she may be authorised to appear by next
friend or proctor, independent of her husband, for the purpose of withdrawing
any opposition to said will, in her name, or on her behalf, and to protect her
rights in the premises.
And your petitioner prays that Major S. H. Webb may be appointed such
next friend, to appear and answer for her in the premises, and to protect her
rights therein.
And your petitioner will pray, &c.
HELEN L. WEBB.
W. L. Cutting, Proctor for Petitioner.
City and County of New-York, ss. — Helen L. Webb, the above petitioner,
being duly sworn, says, that the facts stated by her in the foregoing petition, as
of her own knowledge, are true, and those stated upon the information of others,
she believes to be true.
Sworn before me, this 20th day of October, 1843. David B. Ogden.
In a pretended report of the proceedings of the Surrogate's Court, on the
26th of October last, published in the Courier & Enquirer of the next morning,
J. W. Webb takes occasion, among other abusive matter, to utter a wholesale
libel upon his brother, Major Stephen H. Webb, and wife, Mary J. Webb, Mr.
and Mrs. C. S. Stewart, and Mr. and Mrs. H. C. Le Roy, in which he charges
them with being bribed and bought off by Lispenard Stewart to support the
Will : charges Lispenard Stewart with having threatened to turn his sister,
Mrs. Webb, and her children, into the streets, if her husband, S. H- Webb,
opposed the will : charges Mr. and Mrs. C. S. Stewart with having been the
keepers of Mr. Robert Stewart during his illness, and of preventing all access to
him by other members of the family, thus holding him in duress, he being out
of his mind ; and Mr. Le Roy of having attempted to deprive Mrs. Helen L.
Webb and her children of their share in the Stewart estate, &c.
The following affidavits, marked C, D, and E, were made immediately to lay
before the court, in a pretended report of the proceedings of which these false
Bad libellous accusations were made.

61 c.
BEFORE THE SURROGATE.
In the matter of the Probate of ~l
the last Will and Testament >
of Robert Stewart, dec'd. )
City and County of New- York, ss. — Stephen H. Webb and Mary J. Webb,
of the city of New-York, being duly sworn, do severally depose and say, that
they were not prevented from opposing the probate of the Will of the late
Robert Stewart, by, or on account of, any promises or threats of Mr. Lispenard
Stewart. That it is entirely untrue that said Lispenard Stewart threatened to
turn his sister (one of these deponents) out of doors, for opposing, or if she
opposed the probate of said Will, as asserted by James Watson Webb ; and
that these deponents were never debarred or prevented from visiting the said
Robert Stewart during his last illness, or at any other time, by either Mr. and
Mrs. Charles Stewart, or any other member of the family ; and that the fre
quency of their visits were in no wise limited, except by his own wishes, to
prevent his being disturbed, or to avoid their being confined to a sick room.
S. H. WEBB,
MARY J. WEBB.
Sworn before me, this 25th day of October, 1843.
F. A. Tallmadge, Recorder of the City of New- York.
D.
BEFORE THE SURROGATE.

9 Of}
ent >
='d. )

In the matter of the Probate of 'f
the last Will and Testament
of Robert Stewart, dec'i
City and County of New- York, ss. — Charles S. Stewart, of the City of New-
York, Chaplain in the U. S. Navy, and Sarah A., his wife, being duly sworn, do
severally depose and say, that they were not prevented from opposing the pro
bate of the Will of the late Robert Stewart, by, or on account of, any promises
or threats of Mr. Lispenard Stewart. That it is entirely untrue that said
Lispenard Stewart ever threatened to turn his sister, Mrs. Mary J. Webb, or
her children, out of doors, for her or her husband threatening to oppose said
Will, or for any other cause, to their knowledge or belief; and that it is also
entirely untrue that the said Robert Stewart was in a state of durance, or under
any restraint whatever, at the time of making his said Will, or at any time
during his illness ; or that these deponents, or either of them, prevented the
members of the family, or any of them, from having access to him at anytime,
or on any occasion ; and that all the statements made by James Watson Webb
in relation to such duress or restraint, or to the state of mind of the said Robert
Stewart, as published in the Courier and Enquirer of this day, in a pretended
report of proceedings in this cause, are utterly and entirely untrue. And these
deponents further say, that the said Robert Stewart continued in the full

62
possession of his faculties, and attended to business to the morning of the day
on which he died.
CHARLES SAMUEL STEWART,
SARAH A. STEWART.
Sworn before me, this 27th day of October, 1843.
Charles W. Sandford, Commissioner of Deeds, New- York.
E.
BEFORE THE SURROGATE.

3 Of 1
ent >
c'd. )

In the matter of the Probate of '
the last Will and Testament
of Robert Stewart, dec'c
City and County of New- York, ss. — Herman C. Le Roy and Matilda S. his
wife, of the city of New- York, being duly sworn, do severally depose and say,
that they were not prevented from opposing the probate of the will of the late
Robert Stewart, by, or on account of, any promises or threats of Mr. Lispenard
Stewart. That it is entirely untrue that said Lispenard Stewart ever threats
ened to turn his sister, Mrs. Mary 3. Webb, or her children, out of doors, for
any cause whatever, to their knowledge or bel ief ; and that it is entirely untrue'
to these deponents' knowledge and belief, that these deponents, or any of the
family, were prevented from visiting Mr. Robert Stewart during his last illness,
or at any other time, by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Stewart, or either of them, or
any other member of the family ; and that all the statements made on this sub
ject by James Watson Webb in relation to such duress or restraint, or the
state of mind of said Robert Stewart, as published in the Courier & Enquirer
of the 27th October last, are utterly untrue, to the best of these deponents'
knowledge and belief ; as is also the statement that these deponents, or either
of them, sought to deprive the wife or children of said James Watson Webb of
her share or interest in the estate of said Robert Stewart, or in such portion
thereof as the said Lispenard Stewart might be disposed to appropriate to her
or their use.
HERMAN C. LE ROY,
MATILDA S. LE ROY.
Sworn before me, this 6th day of November, 1843.
Charles W. Sandford, Commissioner of Deeds, New- York.
City and County of New-York, ss. — Charles S. Stewart and Sarah. A., his
wife, being duly sworn, say, that they do not know or believe that the said Her
man C. Le Roy, or Matilda, his wife, sought or attempted to deprive the wife
or children of James W. Webb of her share or interest in the estate of the
said Robert Stewart, or in such portion thereof as the said Lispenard Stewart
might be disposed to appropriate to her or their use.
CHARLES SAMUEL STEWART,
SARAH A. STEWART.
Sworn before me, this 6th day of November, 1843.
Charles W. Sandford, Commissioner of Deeds.

63
Note F — page 12.
The Answer in Chancery, filed under affidavit, of J. W. Webb, April
6th, 1830, and quoted from in the opening pages of this pamphlet, gives the
entire history of the reasons and manner in which he became proprietor of the
Morning Courier in December, 1827. After stating that Alexander L. Stew
art had made a Joan to John B. Skillman, for securing $9,371 of which, judg
ment had been confessed bySkiilman, and an execution levied by Mr. Stewart
on the Morning Courier and its properties, the Answer in Chancery thus pro
ceeds :
" And this defendant (J. W. Webb) further answering says, that previous to
the said abovementioned loan, of which the abovementioned sum of $9,371
was a part, by the said Alexander L. Stewart to the said John B. Skillman, the
said Alexander L. Stewart had advised with this defendant respecting the pro
priety of making such loan, and this defendant had strongly recommended such
loan to be made. And this defendant further says, that after the said above-
mentioned execution was issued, and in the early part of the said month of
December, 1827, and in consequence of the belief which this defendant then
honestly entertained, that the said newspaper establishment, if sold by the
sheriff under the said execution, would produce but a very small sum of money,
and that the said Alexander L. Stewart would thereby lose a great part of the
money which this defendant had advised him to loan to the said John B. Skill-
man, (the said Skillman having no other property of any value,) he, this de
fendant, considering himself the innocent but unfortunate adviser of the said
loan, concluded to come forward, and to take an assignment of $6,850 of the said
debt due to the said Alexander L. Stewart by the said John B. Skillman, and to
secure the repayment of the said sum to the said Alexander L . Stewart, and also to
purchase the said newspaper establishment, with the said abovementioned sum.
And this defendant further answering says, that having come to the deter
mination abovementioned, he, this defendant, with the consent of the said John
B. Skillman, on or about the 17th day of December, in the said year 1827, re
ceived from the said Alexander L. Stewart an assignment of the above sum of
$6,850, part of the debt aforesaid, and with the same, by an assumption
of certain other confidential debts of the said John B. Skillman, that
is to say of $300 to  — , $300 to  , and $250
to  , all of the said city of New- York, merchants, which this de
fendant avers he did assume and agree to pay ; he, this defendant, on the 18th
day of December, in the said year 1827, purchased of the said John B. Skill-
man the said newspaper establishment called the Morning Courier, including its
types, presses, materials, and all other property of every kind, and received a bill
of sale or conveyance therefor from the said John B. Skillman."
CONTRACT
BETWEEN J. W. WEBB AND ALEXANDER STEWART.
This Indenture of two parts, made this eighteenth day of December, A. D.
eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, by and between James Watson Webb, of

64
the city of New- York, of the first part, and Alexander L. Stewart, also of said
city, of the second part ; witnesseth, that whereas the said party of the second
part, hath assigned to the said party of the first part, the right which said par
ty of the second part hath or had to receive from John B. Skillman the sum of
six thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars, being part of a debt due to said
party of the second part from said Skillman ; and said Skillman, in satisfaction
and payment to said party of the first part, hath assigned and transferred to said
party of the first part the newspaper establishment of the Morning Courier,
and also all the debts due and to grow due from subscribers to said Skillman,
and from customers for subscriptions, advertisements, or otherwise, as by ref
erence to a certain indenture between said party of the first part and said Skill-
man will appear. And the said party of the first part hath agreed to pay to said
party of the second part the sum of six thousand eight hundred and fifty dol
lars aforesaid in equal semi-annual instalments of thirty-four hundred and
twenty-five dollars each and every half year, beginning the computation there
of from and after the eighteenth day of December, eighteen hundred and twen
ty-seven, together with lawful interest payable half yearly. Now the said
party of the first part, hereby covenants to the said party of the second part,
that the said party of the first part, will well and truly pay to said party of the
second part the sum of thirty-four hundred and twenty-five dollars on the eigh
teenth day of June next, and the like sum on the eighteenth day of December
next ; and also will on the half yearly days of payment abovementioned, pay
lawful interest on the whole sum then unpaid to the said party of the second
part, and to the end that the said party of the second part shall have opportu
nity of knowing in what manner said party of the first part conducts the busi
ness of the said newspaper establishment which it is understood the said party
of the first part intends to conduct, the said party of the first part hereby cove
nants with the said party of the second part, that he will at all times exhibit
and disclose to said party of the second part, the books and accounts of said
establishment, without reserve, when thereunto requested, and to the end that
the said party of the second part may be secured for the punctual and just pay
ment of the said several sums, and interest at the said several days aforesaid,
the said party of the first part hereby covenants with the said party of the
second part, that on failure of the said 'party of the first part to pay either of
the said sums of money, or the said interest, on either of the days so as afore
said fixed for such payments, the said party of the second part, or any person
thereto authorised by him, shall have right to enter upon whatever tenements
the said party of the first part shall in fact occupy, and then and there possess
himself by his own acts, or by his agent, of all the books, accounts, notes and
securities, pertaining in any way to such newspaper establishment, which said
party of the first part shall have thereon ; also shall have right to seize and
possess himself by his own act, or by his agent, of all the said books, accounts,
notes and securities, pertaining to said establishment, wheresoever else they
may be, and thereupon shall have right exclusively to demand, sue for and col
lect, all and every of the debts and dues to said party of the first part, for and

65
on account of said establishment ; and on public notice in any daily newspaper
published in the city of New- York, the right of said party of the first part to
demand, receive or collect said debts or dues, shall thereupon cease, and thence
forth be vested in said party of the second part. And the said party of the
second part in the event of such seizure and possession of said books,
accounts, notes and securities, hereby covenants with said party of the first
part to place the same in the hands of some suitable agent or attorney to col
lect all such debts and dues until the amount collected shall be sufficient to
cover all the balance due to him on account of the said several sums and inter
est as aforesaid, together with all such costs and charges as he the said party
of the second part shall have been subjected to in making the arrangement and
in making the collections ; and thereupon and thereafter, shall re-deliver all
said books, accounts, notes, and securities which may be remaining unto the
said party of the first part, or such other person or persons as the law shall di
rect. And the said party of the first part further covenants with the said party
of the second part, that upon any such failure of payments as hereinbefore
stipulated, he, the said party of the first part, will upon request assign to the
said party of the second part the said newspaper establishment, including the
good will thereof, the press, types, and every other matter and thing pertaining
to said establishment, to be held, used, and disposed of by the said party of the
second part for the payment of his said debt in the same manner as above
provided in relation to the said debts and dues.
In witness whereof, the said party of the first part hath hereunto set his
hand and seal this eighteenth day of December, one thousand eight hun
dred and twenty-seven.
JAMES WATSON WEBB, [l. s.]
A. L. STEWART. [l. s.]
Sealed and delivered in presence of
F. J. Kinney. [l. s.]

'I