The Project Gutenberg eBook of Ancient, Curious and Famous Wills, by Virgil M. Harris.

A dissenting minister bequeathed a sum of money to his chapel at St. Ives, to provide “six Bibles every year, for which six men and six women are to throw dice on Whit Tuesday after the morning service, the minister kneeling the while at the south end of the communion table, and praying God to direct the luck to His glory.”

A somewhat puzzling task devolved upon a real or imaginary body of men in Pennsylvania. A Mr. Smith Willie, in 1880, appointed as executors of his extraordinary will, a jury of honor consisting of all the householders in his native town, who could prove that they came honestly by their fortunes, each to receive for his trouble the sum of two hundred dollars. He computed that there could not be above twenty, and doubted whether that number would be reached.

“Seeing that I have no direct descendants, and that I am wholly unacquainted with those I may possess collaterally, I bequeath my fortune to any one among them who, in the course of a twelve-month from the date of my death, may distinguish himself by an act of heroism worthy of ancient times.

“In case none of my collateral descendants should be justified in making this claim, I then leave all I possess to be divided between all the women who can prove that they have been my mistresses, be it for ever so brief a period.”

A sick traveller once presented himself at the hospital of Auxerre, in France, where he was received and treated with the care and attention bestowed on all the sick who seek an asylum there. He expressed his gratitude for the kindness shown him, and his intention of testifying it in a more substantial manner, begging the nuns to let him see a notary.

This functionary having obeyed his summons, he informed him that, as an old soldier, he was in the enjoyment of a retiring-pension, and, having earned a medal, of a further allowance; that, in addition to this income, he owned a mortgage worth four thousand five hundred francs, of which the title, as well as his other papers, was deposited with the notary of the commune of the Département du Seine et Marne, where he had a settlement. Upon this he dictated to him a will, by which he bequeathed everything to the hospital, upon the sole condition that they should give him a decent and honorable burial.

At this time he appeared to be recovering, but suddenly his state became worse, and on the following day he died.

To fulfil the promise exacted from them, the administrators of the hospital, instead of supplying the simple funeral ordinarily accorded to the paupers who died there, responded liberally to the behest of their generous benefactor, and accompanied his interment with every mark of respect, after which they went to the office indicated to claim the inheritance bestowed on them. But here a new feature appeared in the case. The mayor and the notary of the parish indicated, expressed themselves entirely ignorant whether of the papers in question or of the singular testator, and on further inquiry they discovered him to be no more than a wretched cowherd, bearing in his neighborhood a very suspicious character. What his motive could have been in practising this deception in his dying moments it is difficult to guess, and his conduct remains an instance of one of those crookednesses of the human mind we often meet with, but do not understand.

One of the most unique wills ever recorded, was filed recently in Worcester, Massachusetts. The testator, Charles Hastings, leaves several garden lots and buildings, valued at fifty thousand dollars, to the Lord Jesus, with the explanation that He is the rightful owner of all lands, according to the Bible, the first book of Laws.

The instrument is an odd mixture of a deed and a will, and was drawn twenty-five years ago. According to the probate records, the instrument was given in consideration of the love and goodwill of the Lord and one cent found in one of the buildings conveyed.

There was a reservation in the instrument, giving the grantor the right to use the lands for life, and to improve and repair the houses and to pay taxes and insurance.

It may be safely surmised that the title to this property will vest in the heirs of the testator.

A spirit will was rejected in Washington, D.C., on August 12th, 1910, by Justice Barnard of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Mrs. Elida J. G. Crowell, widow of William H. Crowell, a clerk in the Treasury Department, applied to the court for the appointment of the deceased’s brother as administrator of his estate and offered in evidence what purported to be a translation of an illegible message, which Crowell scribbled while on his deathbed, favoring his brother’s appointment.

The court was unable to decipher the scrawl, but Mrs. Crowell said a “translation” had been made for her by a “slate-writing medium.” The “translation” in part read:

“This is what I tried to write on a slip of paper: ‘I want my brother, W. H. H. Crowell, Washington, U. S. A., if I should pass away with my sickness. I have perfect trust in him. I believe he will deal honestly with my children. I have set aside $5000 for the exclusive use of my wife. Give little Elizabeth and brother both $100 to put in the Savings Bank.’ Ruby met me. I have seen many folk here. This is a beautiful world. Is better than the Sixth Auditor’s office. They can’t put me out here.

On September 1st, 1910, Adolph Steinberg, an old German cobbler, died in Brooklyn, New York, at 36 Snyder Avenue. For a quarter of a century he had half-soled and mended shoes for those who lived in that section of the city. Mayor Gaynor was one of his customers, and many other prominent men used to go to his little shop to have their shoes repaired.

There always lay close to Steinberg’s feet, as he stitched away, a little metal trunk that was never out of his sight a moment during the day. It was never open, and no one ever caught a glimpse of its contents. At night it was placed under Steinberg’s bed, and in the morning he would pull it out and drag it over to his bench.

Steinberg’s solicitude for the trunk finally caused comment among his customers, and the report got out that the old cobbler kept his money and valuables there, and that a snug fortune was locked up in the little box. It was known that Steinberg was well to do, and for many years he used to lend out money to people who were temporarily out of funds. In such cases, he would get them to leave a watch or some other article of value as security. When they called to repay, Steinberg would return their valuables, charging them no interest for the money loaned.

In the course of many years, Steinberg accumulated quite a collection of watches and trinkets, because many of those to whom he lent money never came back to claim their valuables. So the collection grew and grew.

By his will Steinberg directed that the trunk be not opened until thirty days after his death. His wife and children respected his wish, and much to their satisfaction found it contained securities and other property of considerable value, an accumulation of many years.

The following are extracts from some recent English wills: Thomas Blyth, after directing that no person was to wear mourning for him out of his money, goes on to say: “But I cannot forget the kindness of the ladies who have promised to wear Dolly Varden garters of black and white as a mark of respect for my memory.” William Hampton, after leaving to his son Lawrie’s “Interest Tables,” says he does so, “not from its intrinsic value, but from the hope that so small an incident may be of use to him in future years. And I particularly recommend to him the study of the compound interest tables, as showing that from comparatively small investments, by patience, large sums may be realized.” James Brown evidently believed in every man voting according to his own political convictions, for after leaving to a nephew two cottages, “for which he is to get his vote on,” adds, “and to vote the way which he likes best.” William Farren’s statement as to the character of Cambridge undergraduates is, we hope and believe, unfounded: he hopes by his disposition of his property, “to save his family from keeping or living in an undergraduate lodging-house, as undergraduates are more like wolves and dogs than human beings.”

Matthew Wall of Braughing, Hertfordshire, England, by will, in 1595, charged all his lands and tenements in the parish of Braughing with the yearly payment of twenty shillings, to be distributed by the minister and churchwardens on St. Matthew’s Day, in the following manner:

To the sexton, to make up his grave yearly, and to ring the bell, 1s. 10d. To twenty boys, between the age of six and sixteen, twenty groats. To ten aged and impotent people of the parish, ten threepences. To sweep the path from his house to the church-gate every year, 1s. To the crier of Stortford, to make proclamation yearly, on Ascension and Michaelmas Day, that he left his estate to a Matthew, or William Wall, as long as the world should endure, 8d. To the parish clerk at Hallingbury for the same, 8d., and to the minister and churchwardens, to see his will performed, 5s.

Robert Wilcox, of Alcester, Warwickshire, England, by will, dated 24th of December, 1627, gave a house and grounds to the town of Alcester, for the maintenance of three sermons in the year, viz.:

“One upon the 5th of November, in remembrance of our happy deliverance, with our king, nobles and states, from the pestilent design of the Papists in the Powder Plot; one on the 17th of November, in remembrance of that good Queen Elizabeth, her entrance unto the Crown; and the third upon the last day of July, in remembrance of the Lord’s gracious deliverance from the Spanish Armada, in ’88.”

And whereas the rent was 20s. by the year then, and the good-wife, Lilly, having her life in it, after her decease no doubt the house and close would be worth 30s. by the year; then his will was that the said overplus should be given to the poor every year, as the rent should come in, forever.

The will of Edward Wortley Montagu, son of Mr. Montagu, Ambassador to Constantinople in 1716, by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, his wife, the supposed “Sappho” of Pope, is more than singular. After some bequest “to my noble and worthy relation, the Earl of ——,” he adds, “I do not give his lordship any further part of my property because the best part of that he has contrived to take already. Item, to Sir Francis —— I give one word of mine, because he has never had the good fortune to keep his own. Item, to Lord M—— I give nothing, because I know he’ll bestow it on the poor. Item, to —— the author, for putting me in his travels, I give five shillings for his wit, undeterred by the charge of extravagance, since friends who have read his book consider five shillings too much. Item, to Sir Robert W—— I leave my political opinions, never doubting he can well turn them into cash, who has always found such an excellent market in which to change his own. Item, my cast-off habit of swearing oaths I give to Sir Leopold D——, in consideration that no oaths have ever been able to find him yet.”

From some quarrel with his family he advertised for some widow or single lady of good manners likely to bring him an heir in —— months. This treasure to his arms his valet brought by his desire to meet him at Venice, from England; but as the ship of Wortley Montagu was entering the Venetian lagunes, to wed the chaste bride on the following day, the eager and expectant bridegroom swallowed too hastily a chicken bone, which, sticking in his throat, suffocated him in a few minutes.

By a deed, dated 12th of August, 1801, executed in pursuance of a decree in Chancery, relative to the will of John Perram of New Market, England, dated 30th of May, 1772, the trustees of a sum of £410 6s. 2d. Three Per Cent Consols and £21 Bank Long Annuities, being the original sum given by the will, together with such accumulations thereon which had accrued during the proceedings in Chancery, were declared; to hold them upon trust, six weeks at least before Easter, to cause notice to be given, as therein directed, that a marriage portion of £21 would be given to a parishioner of the said parish, who should, on Thursday in the Easter week, be married at the church to a woman belonging to it; neither party to be under twenty, nor to exceed twenty-five years of age, nor be worth £20; the trustees to attend in the vestry to receive claims, and pay the bequest to such couples as should be qualified to receive it. In case of two claims, the determination to be by ballot who should receive it. In case of no claimants, then the money, for that year only, to be paid by the trustees to the winner of the next town horse-race; the race course at New Market is four miles long and is regarded the finest in the world.

Both in France and the United States there exist medical societies which make a special study of the human brain. In the United States a regular blank form of testamentary bequest has been formulated, and the brains of a number of prominent persons, particularly those of doctors, have passed under its provisions; a form used is here given:

“I, ——, of ——, recognizing the need of studying the brains of educated and orderly persons rather than those of the ignorant, criminal or insane, in order to determine their weight, form, and fissural patterns, the correlations with bodily and mental powers of various kinds and degrees, and the influences of sex, age and inheritance, hereby declare my wish, that at my death, my brain shall be entrusted to the Cornell Brain Association, or to the Curator of the Collection of human brains, in the Museum of Cornell University, for scientific uses, and for preservation, as a whole or in part, as may be thought best. If my near relatives, by blood or marriage, object seriously to the fulfilment of this bequest, it shall be void. I earnestly hope that they may interpose neither objection nor obstacle.

Medical works state that college professors are among the individuals best adapted to subserve the purposes indicated, by reason of their sharply defined capacities and attainments; lawyers, doctors and preachers seem to come next in favor.

It will be recalled that the late Florence Nightingale by will left her body for dissection and the cause of medical science.

Mrs. Susan M. Corning died recently at Rockaway Beach, New York, leaving an estate valued at several thousand dollars. By an unusual clause in her will she appointed an arbitration committee to pass upon any dispute which might arise in the distribution of her estate. The clause reads:

“It is my express will and wish and I hereby order and direct that if any differences shall arise concerning any gift, bequest or other thing in this will, no suit shall be brought over the same, but the said difference shall be referred wholly to George Bennett, Louis Kreusher and Albert Meisel, all of Rockaway Beach, and what they order and direct shall be binding and conclusive to all persons concerned.”

“They are to share it equally, and on no account to go to law about it, on pain of forfeiting their respective shares.

“I own seventy-one pairs of trousers, and I strictly enjoin my executors to hold a public sale at which these shall be sold to the highest bidder, and the proceeds distributed to the poor of the city.

“I desire that these garments shall in no way be examined or meddled with, but be disposed of as they are found at the time of my death; and no one purchaser is to buy more than one pair.”

As the testator had always been more or less eccentric in his ways, no one was much surprised at these singular clauses, which were religiously observed. The sale was held, and the seventy-one pairs of trousers were sold to seventy-one different purchasers. One of these, in examining the pockets, discovered in the fob a packet of some sort, closely sewn up. He lost no time in cutting the thread, and was not a little surprised to find a bundle of bank-notes representing a thousand dollars. The news soon spread, and each of the others found himself possessed of a similar amount.

As may be supposed, all were well satisfied except the heirs, who could not find redress in law, this recourse being prohibited.

In a celebrated case, frequently quoted, the testator bequeathed to the plaintiff, “all my black and white horses.” Now the testator had six black horses, six white horses and six pied horses, and the question was whether the pied horses passed under the terms of the bequest. After elaborate argument, judgment was given for the plaintiff, and then it was moved in arrest of judgment that the pied horses were mares.

An eccentric Frenchman left his estate to his six nephews and six nieces on the condition that “every one of my nephews marries a woman named Antonie and that every one of my nieces marries a man named Anton.” They were further required to give the Christian name Antonie or Anton to every first-born child according to the sex. The marriage of each nephew was to be celebrated on one of the St. Anthony’s Days, either January 17th, May 10th, or June 13th, and if, in any instance, this last provision was not complied with before July, 1896, one-half of the legacy was in that case to be forfeited.

Elizabeth Townsend of Westbury, Wilts, England, widow, by her will, dated 11th of June, 1820, gave unto the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Westbury as much money as should be sufficient, when invested in the stocks, to yield the yearly sum of £3 clear of all deductions, upon trust to pay the dividends thereof unto the vicar, organist, parish clerk, and choir of the parish church of Westbury, for the time being, upon special condition that the said choir should forever thereafter, in the morning and afternoon service, at the parish church, on the Sunday preceding the 24th of June in each year, sing the anthem composed by her late husband’s grandfather, Roger Townsend, from the 150th Psalm, and also the 112th Psalm, for which the vicar was to have 4s., the organist 10s., the clerk 5s., and 4s. apiece to the choir singers, viz., two counter, two tenor, three treble, and three bass singers, and in default of their singing, then to divide such £3 amongst the poor at Christmas.

The same person made a similar bequest to the choir of the parish church of Warminster, Wilts.

The humorous will of Dr. Dunlop of Upper Canada is worth recording, though there is a spice of malice in every bequest it contains.

“To my eldest sister Joan, my five-acre field, to console her for being married to a man she is obliged to henpeck.

“To my second sister Sally, the cottage that stands beyond the said field with its garden, because as no one is likely to marry her it will be large enough to lodge her.

“To my third sister Kate, the family Bible, recommending her to learn as much of its spirit as she already knows of its letter, that she may become a better Christian.

“To my fourth sister Mary, my grandmother’s silver snuff-box, that she may not be ashamed to take snuff before company.

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

“To my brother James, my big silver watch, that he may know the hour at which men ought to rise from their beds.

“To my brother-in-law Christopher, my best pipe, out of gratitude that he married my sister Maggie whom no man of taste would have taken.

“To my friend John Caddell, a silver teapot, that, being afflicted with a slatternly wife, he may therefrom drink tea to his comfort.”

While “old John’s” eldest son was made legatee of a silver tankard, which the testator objected to leave to old John himself, lest he should commit the sacrilege of melting it down to make temperance medals.

John Troutbeck of Dacre, Cumberland, England, by will, dated 27th of October, 1787, gave to the poor of Dacre, the place of his nativity, £200, the interest thereof to be distributed every Easter Sunday on the family tombstone in Dacre churchyard, provided the day should be fine, by the hands and at the discretion of a Troutbeck of Blencowe, if there should be any living, those next in descent having prior right of distribution; and if none should be living that would distribute the same, then by a Troutbeck, as long as one could be found that would take the trouble of it; otherwise by the minister and churchwardens of the parish for the time being; that not less than five shillings should be given to any individual, and that none should be considered entitled to it that received alms, or any support from the parish.

In the will of the late Mr. J. Sargeant, of Leicester, England, who died some forty years ago, is the following clause: “As my nephews are fond of indulging themselves in bed in the morning, and as I wish them to prove to the satisfaction of my executors that they have got out of bed in the morning, and either employed themselves in business or taken exercise in the open air, from five to eight o’clock every morning from the fifth of April to the 10th of October, being three hours every day, and from seven to nine o’clock in the morning from the 10th of October to the 5th of April, being two hours every morning; this is to be done for some years, during the first seven years to the satisfaction of my executors, who may excuse them in case of illness, but the task must be made up when they are well, and if they will not do this, they shall not receive any share of my property. Temperance makes the faculties clear, and exercise makes them vigorous. It is temperance and exercise that can alone ensure the fittest state for mental or bodily exertion.”

“I hereby direct my executors to lay out five guineas in the purchase of a picture of the viper biting the benevolent hand of the person who saved him from perishing in the snow, if the same can be bought for the money; and that they do, in memory of me, present it to ——, Esq., a king’s counsel, whereby he may have frequent opportunities of contemplating it, and, by a comparison between that and his own virtue, be able to form a certain judgment which is best and most profitable, a grateful remembrance of past friendship and almost parental regard, or ingratitude and insolence. This I direct to be presented to him in lieu of a legacy of three thousand pounds I had by a former will, now revoked and burned, left him.”

This will provoked a suit for libel, a proceeding not altogether unknown, for defamation contained in a testamentary document, though such proceedings are rare. Mr. John Marshall Gest of Philadelphia refers to this clause in his excellent address on “Practical Suggestions for Writing Wills.” It is also to be found in the “Curiosities of the Search Room,” an English work of the highest merit.

Grates v. Fraser. This was a suit for the administration of the estate of the late Dr. Fraser, of Hampstead, England, who left a large amount of property to be distributed among various charities. The will, probated in 1878, contained several very singular clauses, one of which was to this effect: That he had previously left ten thousand pounds to the Senatus Academicus of the University of Edinburgh, for the purpose of founding certain bursaries connected with the medical profession, but having learnt that the horrible and atrocious practice prevailed there of performing unspeakably cruel operations and experiments on living animals, he now by his will cancelled the bequest, and desired to benefit the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to a similar extent, since he could not reconcile it with his feelings to encourage, however remotely, the barbarous practice of vivisection. The testator also directed that his funeral should be conducted with as little parade as possible, without cloaks, hatbands, or scarfs, and that no feathers, wands, or other absurdities should be used on the occasion, and that the ridiculous display of hired mourners, mutes, or attendants, be dispensed with. Most sensible people, he continued, condemn the above useless customs, but nevertheless, from vanity or in blind obedience to antiquated usages, perpetuate and encourage them. He then directed his body to be buried in any cemetery, without reference to its being what was called “consecrated” or “unconsecrated” ground, or whether any service should be repeated at the grave or not, as these were matters about which he was utterly indifferent; they could avail him nothing, but might, if the weather were cold, cause the health of some friend to suffer.

An English gentleman, who had from his earliest years been educated with the most violent prejudices against the Irish, came, when advanced in life, to inherit a considerable property in the county of Tipperary, but under the express condition that he should reside on the land. To this decree he very reluctantly conformed, but his feelings towards the natives only grew more bitter in consequence.

At his death some years after, on the 17th of March, 1791, his executors were extremely surprised on opening his will to find the following dispositions:

“I give and bequeath the annual sum of ten pounds, to be paid in perpetuity out of my estate, to the following purpose. It is my will and pleasure that this sum shall be spent in the purchase of a certain quantity of the liquor vulgarly called whisky, and it shall be publicly given out that a certain number of persons, Irish only, not to exceed twenty, who may choose to assemble in the cemetery in which I shall be interred, on the anniversary of my death, shall have the same distributed to them. Further, it is my desire that each shall receive it by half-a-pint at a time till the whole is consumed, each being likewise provided with a stout oaken stick and a knife, and that they shall drink it all on the spot. Knowing what I know of the Irish character, my conviction is, that with these materials given, they will not fail to destroy each other, and when in the course of time the race comes to be exterminated, this neighbourhood at least may, perhaps, be colonized by civilized and respectable Englishmen.”

A very curious will was that of a Polish landlord, M. Zalesky, who died in 1889, leaving property valued at one hundred thousand roubles. His will was enclosed in an envelope bearing the words: “To be opened after my death.” Inside there was another envelope, “To be opened six weeks after my death.” When this time had passed, the second envelope was opened, and a third uncovered, “To be opened one year after my death.” At the end of the year, a fourth envelope was discovered, to be opened two years after the testator’s death; and so the game went on until 1894, when the actual will was discovered and read. The contents of this will were quite as eccentric as the directions attached to its opening. The testator bequeathed half his fortune to such of his heirs as had the largest number of children. The rest of the property was to be placed in bank, and a hundred years after his death to be divided, with the accumulated interest, among the will-maker’s descendants.

An Irishman named Dennis Tolam, who died at Cork possessed of considerable wealth, in the year 1769, left a singular will, containing the following testamentary dispositions: “I leave to my sister-in-law four old stockings, which will be found under my mattress, to the right. Item: To my nephew, Michael Tarles, two odd socks and a green nightcap. Item: To Lieutenant John Stein, a blue stocking, with my red cloak. Item: To my cousin, Barbara Dolan, an old boot, with a red flannel pocket. Item: To Hannah, my housekeeper, my broken water-jug.” After the death of the testator, the legatees having been convened by the notary to be present at the reading of the will, each, as he or she was named, shrugged their shoulders and otherwise expressed a contemptuous disappointment, while parties uninterested in the succession could not refrain from laughing at these ridiculous, not to say insulting, legacies. All were leaving the room, after signifying their intention of renouncing their bequests, when the last-named, Hannah, having testified her indignation by kicking away the broken pitcher, a number of coins rolled out of it; the other individuals, astonished at the unexpected incident, began to think better of their determination, and requested permission to examine the articles given to them. It is needless to say that, on proceeding to the search, the stockings, socks, pocket, etc., soon betrayed by their weight the value of their contents; and the hoard of the testator, thus fairly distributed, left on the minds of the legatees a very different impression of his worth.

A curious and peculiarly hard case came before a Vice-Chancellor in London in 1880. The facts are as follows: A Miss Turner devised a large amount of real estate to her father for life, and then to her brother on these conditions: “But if my brother shall marry during my life without my consent in writing, or if he shall already have married, or hereafter shall marry, a domestic servant,” then such bequest to her brother was to be void. It appears the brother came into possession of the estate and died in 1898, leaving a widow and two children. Suit was instituted against the widow and children on the ground that the testatrix’s brother had forfeited his title to the legacy by marrying a domestic servant. It was contended on behalf of the widow that she had been a housekeeper, and not a domestic servant. The Vice-Chancellor, however, was of the opinion that a housekeeper was a domestic servant, and thus the legacy was forfeited.

Stanislas Poltzmarz, a Hungarian, possessed of considerable wealth, and residing at Pesth, died about 1835, bequeathing the larger part of his fortune, consisting of three million florins, to a notary named Lotz, but stipulated that before claiming it he should engage himself at the Scala at Milan, to perform in the operas of “Otello” and “La Sonnambula.” The testator, who was eighty years of age, deprecates being considered in his dotage, and takes the trouble to explain that, having some few years before met the said Lotz at an evening party, where he had sung fragments of the parts of Elvino and Otello, he had admired the beauty of his tenor voice, and predicted that it only depended on himself to become the favorite of the whole musical world. “If, therefore,” he concludes, “I am right, he will thank me, and so will all dilettanti, for my acumen; if, on the other hand, he should fail, he will have money enough to compensate for the hisses he may incur.”

“The Prophet’s Beard Case,” which created a sensation among the followers of the Prophet at Madras, was called on for final disposal before Mr. Justice Innes, Acting Chief Justice, in August, 1879. The subject of dispute was a hair of the Prophet’s beard, which is enclosed in a case and is called the “Aussaree Shareef,” or sacred relic, and in connection with which the Government allows a monthly pension of Rs. 47-14-4, obtained from funds left by a late Nabob for the purpose of carrying out ceremonies in connection with the sacred relic. There were, when the case was first instituted, no less than six claimants, two by right of a will, the others claiming it in succession from generations. Two of the claimants and the plaintiff withdrew from the suit, leaving only four to establish their rights to the sacred heirloom. His lordship, in a lengthy judgment, decided that the first, third, and fourth defendants were entitled to the sacred relic; but as the first defendant was a woman she could not hold office in connection with it, and as No. 3 was the elder brother of No. 4, he directed that he should hold the “Aussaree Shareef,” and perform all ceremonies in connection with it, making three equal shares of whatever remained from the allowance after their performance.

Mr. Arbirlot, a Scotch gentleman, left extremely handsome legacies to a number of his friends. The lawyer who wrote down his wishes, looked up from time to time to ascertain whether his client could be in earnest; at last he could not refrain from asking him whether he was sure his assets would cover all these bequests. At this the humorous testator burst out laughing, admitting that of course they wouldn’t, only he didn’t like to go out of the world without leaving the expression of his regard for these legatees, by showing what he would have done for them if he had had the means. No doubt the intention was a benevolent one; but we doubt whether the joke was one calculated to be received in a spirit of affectionate gratitude, especially by the executors, whose equanimity would have been put to a severe test had the puzzle not been explained before the testator’s death.

A county newspaper some years ago recorded the death of a Major Hook, and spoke of him as “a singular character.” “He died,” says the report, “on Monday sennight, at his house, Ham Street, Ham Common. He was an officer in the East India Company’s service, and reached the age of seventy-five. His house was remarkable for its dingy and dilapidated condition.”

His wife had become entitled to a life annuity, bequeathed to her in these ambiguous terms: “And the same shall be paid to her as long as she is above ground.” When, therefore, the good lady died, her husband very naturally objected to forfeit this income by putting her below ground; and ingeniously devised a mode of keeping her in a room which he allotted “to her sole and separate use,” placing a glass-case over her remains. For thirty years he thus prolonged his enjoyment, if not of his wife’s society, at least of her income.

William J. Haskett, a lawyer, who died in New York in 1890, left a will containing this curiously worded clause: “I am informed that there is a society composed of young men connected with the public press; and as in early life I was connected with the papers, I have a keen recollection of the toils and troubles that bubbled then and ever will bubble for the toilers of the world in their pottage caldron; and as I desire to thicken with a little savory herb their thin broth in the shape of a legacy, I do hereby bequeath to the New York Press Club of the City of New York, $1000, payable on the death of Mrs. Haskett.”

Not long ago, a wealthy gentleman on Long Island died, who provided that none of his heirs should inherit, unless they could show that they had led a life of angelic virtue. Among the conditions mentioned, were these: That they should not smoke or drink; that they should rise every morning and breakfast at a certain hour; that they should be in the house every evening at a certain hour; that they should be industrious and strictly moral; that they should never enter a barroom, and should not get married before the age of twenty-five. It is stated that the heirs were practically disinherited, all but one having failed to live up to the conditions.

A rector of a Yorkshire parish, who died in 1804, left a considerable property to his only daughter under the following conditions:

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

This clause was worded thus: “Seeing that my daughter Anna has not availed herself of my advice touching the objectionable practice of going about with her arms bare up to the elbows, my will is that, should she continue after my death in this violation of the modesty of her sex, all the goods, chattels, moneys, land, and other property that I have devised to her for the maintenance of her future life shall pass to the oldest of the sons of my sister Caroline. Should anyone take exception to this my wish as being too severe, I answer that license in dress in a woman is a mark of a depraved mind.”

The will (dated March 26th, 1874) of the Rev. William Hill, late of Lansdowne Villas, Springfield Road, Cotham, Bristol, Baptist minister, who died on November 11, 1879, was proved at the district registry, Bristol, by Emerson Geerish and Thomas Bowbeer, the executors, under three thousand pounds. After the death of his wife he gives to the Society for the Relief of Aged and Infirm Baptist Ministers, instituted in Bath, 1816, and to the Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, each one hundred pounds. The testator directs “the payment of all my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, as soon as conveniently may be after my departure to heaven; but, as this is to be my final public document, I shall here record my detestation of all State establishments of religion, believing them to be anti-scriptural and soul-ruining. I have for years prayed the King of Zion to overthrow the politico-ecclesiastical establishment of the British Empire, and I leave the world with a full conviction that such prayer must ere long be answered. I thirst to see the Church brought down, the Church by man set up, for millions are by it led on to drink a bitter cup. I desire all posterity to know that William Hill was a conscientious Trinitarian Baptist Minister, and that he believed infant sprinkling to be from his Satanic Majesty, the keystone of Popery, therefore the parent of unnumbered terrible evils; this delusion must also pass away at the Divinely-appointed time, and the immersion of believers, as plainly taught by the Great Teacher, the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles, shall one day universally triumph. Man says, some water in the face, and that before the child has grace, is what is meant in Jesus’ word, by being buried in the Lord. The deadly drinking customs of professors and non-professors are likewise doomed. Heaven dash all error, sin, and the devil from the earth, and cause truth, holiness, and Christ everywhere to prevail. Amen.”

The three testamentary gems following are to be found in one volume of the Pennsylvania State Reports:

“the requeste of tresse Carey i
want ransler Carey to hav my plase
as long as he shall live i want drusilla Carey
to stay and keepe house for hur father and
marten i want mr carey to give lovica shoop wone
shale wone pare of
stockings Rozanner dark wone coveled i want
cathern stanten
to hav my cloak and to Dresses
i want (erasure) mr carey to give
Won hundred Dolars two the methodus
Church I want drusila carey to hav
all my household property as soon as i am ded.
and after mr carey is ded i
want drusila (erasure) (erasure)
carey two hav my farm.

“In the Name of god I Samull Eddinger
of Moore Township County of Northampton
State of Penn Do make this my Last will
and testament as follows
that is to Say my Disire
my son John he Shall have one
thousand Dollars in Advance before
any of the heirs Shall hav any money
from my Estate personal property
first my Son John Shall Settle up all
my Depts funeral Expace &c.
till all is paid
my Son John he shall setle
my personal property as soon
it is Posible
he shall pay the of the money from
my personal goods the half of
the money to my Daughter Margret and
what is Left from the Balence of
the Thousand Dollrs he tookt of for
himself
my Son John Shall pay to my
Daughter Margret an Annally one a
Hundred and twenty five Dollars for her
Natural Life time or as long she
will Liv in this World
and my Son John he shall have
all my Real Estate for his own
property as Soon my Daughter is Deased
my Son John Shall not pay any Longer
Not to her heirs and to nobody
it be Stopt.”

The third runs as follows: “it to be understood that any of my grandchildren who shall be guilty of having an illegitimate child, or of the sin of intemperance, or that do wickedly and illegitimately profane God’s holy name, he, she, or they, to forever debar themselves from the benefit of any bequest,” and that the shares of offending ones should be divided amongst their brothers and sisters, “whose life and conversation is free from reproach.”

One of the most singular cases that ever came before a court of justice was the dispute as to the validity of the will of the late Mr. W. R. Smee, probated in 1880 in England. That the testator was a man of exceptional ability is beyond doubt. His powers of organization were so good that he was employed by the Post Office authorities to readjust several departments which had got into a state of disorder. A pamphlet of his, on the question of the “Repeal of the Malt Duties,” attracted the attention of the acting Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Bass, who sought an interview with the writer; and after 1860 he wrote many able articles for various newspapers. At the same time, there is equally little doubt that Mr. Smee had insane delusions of the sort which most commonly afflict lunatics. He believed that he was a son of George IV, and rightful heir to the throne, and in 1859, before the composition of the articles just mentioned, he wrote a letter to the Prince Consort, enclosing a preposterous petition to the Queen on the subject of his “rights.” This absurd document stated that when out walking with his nurse he had been recognized by a crowd as the Prince of Wales, and escorted home amid loud hurrahs. The king had taken him on his royal knee, and said to him, “Poor boy, poor boy, get on with your learning. A great destiny is preparing for you, though you do not know it.” Every morning, he asserted, drugs were administered which took away his memory. The Duke of Wellington, disguised in a mechanic’s dress, followed him round Finsbury Circus; and, during his last illness, Mr. William Smee, senior, had said: “Extraordinary and unheard of means have been adopted to keep him down, or he must have come to the throne.” In his will the testator left his property to the corporation of Brighton, wishing to be associated with his supposed royal father as a benefactor to that town. As must have been generally expected, the Court pronounced against the will which benefited the popular seaside resort. “The fact that a man was capable of transacting business, to whatever extent that might go, however complicated the business might be, and however considerable the powers of intellect it might require, did not exclude the idea of his being of unsound mind,” the president stated in the course of his interesting judgment. “A man might be a good carpenter and follow his calling, and yet his mind might be tainted with insanity to such an extent that he might be held irresponsible for a crime on the ground that he did not know the nature of the act he committed. Therefore, all the arguments addressed to the jury on the subject of the testator’s capacity to deal with complex subjects, to write pamphlets, and to make calculations, had nothing to do with the question whether he was of unsound mind or not. He was admittedly of unsound mind, because shown by that which was the most conclusive symptom and evidence of unsoundness—namely, the presence of delusions—that was to say, ideas which they could not conceive any rational man entertaining.” These arguments do not tend to simplify the difficult duties of those who have the misfortune to be called upon to give advice in cases of mental disease.

Mary Richardson, who died on the 28th of May, 1874, made, by her will, numerous charitable bequests, amongst which was £500 to the “London Church Building Society.” There being no society in London bearing that title exactly, a petition was presented by the treasurers of the London Diocesan Church Building Society for the payment out of court of the bequest named. The Bishop of London’s fund likewise presented its claim; as also did the Incorporated Society for Promoting the Enlargement Building, and Repairing of Churches in England and Wales, the latter supposing that it most exactly answered the description of a London church building society. The Vice-Chancellor, however, Sir C. Hall, decided in favor of the London Diocesan Church Building Society, because the words used most nearly approached those of the title given by the testatrix.

As this was the entire will, without any clue whatever to its signification, the surviving relatives, for there were no executors appointed, set their wits to work to discover its enigmatic signification. At last they found that the testatrix’s property amounted to 75,000 francs, and they therefore concluded that each unit represented 1000. Another difficulty arose from the fact that there were in the family several repetitions of some of the names mentioned in the will. The decision, however, was worked out by common sense, and, strange to say, two trials at law that followed, failed to overthrow it.

A certain testator devised his property to a stranger, wholly disinheriting the heir or next of kin, and directed that his executors should “cause some part of his bowels to be converted into fiddle strings, and that others should be sublimed into smelling salts, and that the remainder of his body should be vitrified into lenses, for optical purposes.” In a letter attached to this will the testator said, “The world may think this to be done in a spirit of singularity or whim, but I have a mortal aversion to funeral pomp, and I wish my body to be converted into purposes useful to mankind.” The testator was shown to have conducted his affairs with great shrewdness and ability, and had been regarded by his associates through life as a person possessing high business qualifications, and the will was upheld.

Another unusual will showing a strong religious belief and which incorporates a sermon to his heirs, is that of Elias Boudinot which was probated in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, in 1821. The will contained twenty-six closely written pages of manuscript. The beginning of the will which contains the sermon is as follows:

“Know all men by these presents that I, Elias Boudinot, late of the city of Philadelphia, and director of the mint of the United States, but now of the city of Burlington, N.J., Doctor of Laws, being by the unmerited goodness of Almighty God, after great affliction, by a long series of bad health, and having passed my eighty-first year and returned to a tolerable state of bodily health, so as to possess a sound and disposing mind and memory; but being often reminded of the uncertainty of life and the propriety of settling the intended disposition of my property while free from the distresses of a sick bed, do make and publish this my last will and testament.

“And as this instrument cannot take effect till after my death, but must then be frequently resorted to by my representatives, I do therefore improve so good an opportunity of repeating the profession I have made for more than sixty years, and which by the free grace of God, through Jesus Christ, and by the continued influences of his Holy Spirit, has been strengthened and confirmed by the most happy experience, founded on solid ground and by a thorough examination and inquiry into the divine scriptures through that long period, and in which I hope under the same blessed influences to finish my mortal race, I mean that of a firm, unfeigned and prevailing belief in one sovereign, omnipotent and eternal Jehovah, a God of infinite love and mercy who hath delivered us from the powers of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invincible God, the first born of every creature, and he is before all things and by him all things consist, and whoever has been and still is reconciled a guilty world unto himself by his righteousness and atonement, his death and his resurrection, through whom alone life and immortality have been brought to light in his gospel, and by the all-powerful influence of his daily spirit, is daily sanctifying, enlightening and leading his faithful people into all necessary truth.

“And as it has pleased a holy and sovereign God to favor me with the continuance of one only child, to whom I most cordially wish and pray for the best and greatest possible good in time and eternity, I do in the most solemn manner, as in the presence of the one only great and glorious God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in view of an approaching eternity, beseech and entreat her to make the fear and love of God the great objects of her constant attention and pursuit, and in a particular manner that she will by a persevering inquiry into, and a thorough knowledge of the spirit and power of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which she has been so long, and I trust through divine mercy savingly acquainted with, endeavor to cherish and increase the like temper, disposition and usefulness in life as are therein so clearly and plainly taught and enforced, and which, generally speaking, consist in an universal benevolence, meekness, self-denial, deep contrition for sin and unfeigned love to our brethren, with an habitual lively faith in and dependence upon our Lord Jesus Christ, as the only atonement for our sins, the source of every blessing, and when the gift of God will inevitably work by love, purify the heart and be productive of good works, always remembering that however the profession of a particular denomination of our holy religion among men may be beneficial to herself and others in their state of imperfection in which every aid should be sought to support and manifest the Christian character, yet that the Church of Christ is one universal and Catholic Church, a communion of saints not confined to time or place, name or party of Christians, but that every one who exercises deep and sincere repentance towards God, unfeigned faith in his beloved Son and worketh righteousness, is born of God.

“And I do more expressly press it upon her under every circumstance of life, to consider that day as worse than lost, in which she does not seek earnestly communion with her Heavenly Father under the special influence of His Holy Spirit, and she may be positively assured that this may be done even amidst the common and ordinary business of life as in the most profound and secret retirements, assisted by the ordinances of his gospel; would also earnestly recommend her habitually living under prevailing sense of God’s overruling providence, which, however wonderful, regards the smallest things of those who love and fear him, even to the numbering of the hairs of the heads.

“As to all and singular, the temporal estate wherewith it has pleased God in his undeserved mercy to amply reward my industry and application to business, for the use and enjoyment of which I do him my most grateful thanks, acknowledging his great goodness and beneficence to me therein, I do dispose of the same and all my estate therein in the following manner, wishing to do what I think by solemn and serious consideration, will not be contrary to his divine will, but in the end may advance the honor of his great name.”

We might head this paper “Why Paul Duhalde made his Will,” for certainly no idea could be much more original than that on which its principal, and disputed, clause was founded.

A brief sketch of the history of Paul Duhalde cannot fail to interest our readers, and will best explain the peculiarity of this testamentary document.

This individual was born at Paris in 1691; he died in 1725; he was the son of a dealer in diamonds, and lost his father at the age of sixteen years, when he was sent to Spain by his mother to learn the arcana of the business. The lad had no success, and returned. He was then placed with a merchant at Rouen, but did not get on, and subsequently passed to America, but his restless disposition soon sent him back to France. This brought him to the year 1717, and he was now twenty-six years of age. He remained some months with his mother, and then, having contracted a partnership with two jewel merchants, set off a second time to Madrid; this enterprise was, however, not more successful than those preceding it, and he came back to Paris, in the month of February, 1719, profoundly discouraged, and not without reason.

Here the melancholy reflections consequent on his repeated and persistent failures suggested to him a very singular notion, that of contracting a partnership with God. He proceeded to enter seriously into this abnormal contract, and drew up an act in regular and technical form, which he transcribed into his day-book on September 24, 1719, in the following terms: “I have resolved to enter into a partnership with God, promising and undertaking to fulfil all the within-mentioned articles; and I enjoin my heirs, whoever they may be, to carry out these my intentions in case I should die before accomplishing them myself.”

He then proceeds to declare that this association, the object of which is to deal in precious stones, shall hold good for five years, reckoning from October 2, 1719. He fixes his capital at 3000 Spanish piastres, about $3000, being all that remained to him of his patrimony. He binds himself not to enter into any other partnership during the five years, unless with a woman, by marriage. As soon as the five years shall have elapsed, he proposes to balance his accounts, to begin by withdrawing from the partnership the 3000 piastres with which he started; secondly, to take from it the dowry that his wife may have brought him; thirdly, any sum or sums that may have fallen in to him by succession or otherwise during the time; after which he adds, “And the surplus shall be equally divided between God and myself.”

This unique partnership having been thus determined, Duhalde starts a third time for Spain, but the outset of this new attempt does not augur well for the partners. Two years after, however (1721), the project of a double marriage between the Courts of France and Spain gives a new impetus to the branch of commerce in which he is engaged, and he resolves to improve the opportunity. At last Fortune seems to smile upon his endeavors, and the ultimate results exceed his fondest hopes. He now returns to Paris, resolving to settle himself finally there.

In 1722 he married the daughter of De Hansy, a well-known bookseller, who brought him 30,000 livres, and from his mother, who died in September of the same year, he inherited 70,226 livres. On May 20, 1723, a son was born to him.

Meantime Duhalde never loses sight of the obligations he has taken upon himself toward his partner. He draws, from time to time, from the common fund, sums which he distributes in the name of God, to the poor, and inscribes these with regularity and precision in his registers.

On October 1, 1724, the partnership expires. Duhalde strikes a balance of his accounts, and finds from the aggregate of the entries that he has already paid to the poor 13,684 livres; but this is not all. In the statement of account drawn up he has considered three classes of stones as constituting a portion of the profits: one of these lots is at Amsterdam, one at Madrid, and one at Paris; these he shares equally, inscribing on the packets which contain them: “Half for the poor”; and at the foot of the statement of account he writes: “Misfortune and malediction upon my heirs, whoever they may be, if, under any pretext whatever, they should fail to distribute to the poor the half of whatever proceeds may come from the jewels now in my possession, if so be God should call me away before I shall have been able to satisfy their claims myself. Further, if by any extraordinary event it should appear at my death that no other amounts are forthcoming but those goods or sums which are virtually the property of the poor, let not a sacrilegious hand be laid upon them; they constitute a deposit which can under no circumstances be diverted from its just cause.”

In addition to this precaution, and in order to secure to the poor the amounts he regarded as strictly their due, Duhalde drew up in the month of January, 1725, eight bills of 1000 livres each, payable to order from year to year, comprising the years 1725 to 1732, and placed these bills in the hands of the Vicar of St. Germain l’Auxerrois.

On January 14, 1725, he fell ill and made his will, by which he declares that: “In the books which contain the minutes of my affairs there are several articles touching matters that concern the poor; I beg my executor to examine these articles with the greatest accuracy, and to see they are carried out with the strictest attention.”

Two months after, Duhalde dies, leaving a young widow, a minor, and an infant two years old. The schedule of property is called over, the administrators of the Hôpital Général are invited to attend. Among the effects of the deceased are found packets of precious stones, labelled “Half for the poor”; their portion is estimated at 18,188 livres. The administrators claim it, but offer to compromise for the sum of 15,900 ff. The young widow protests; the guardian contends that the will should be set aside on the ground that no sane men ever enter into partnership with God. The parties appeal to law, and, after a spirited altercation, a judgment is obtained, April 3, 1726, on the decision of D’Aguesseau (Avocat-Général), ordering that “The will of Duhalde and the acts and codicils dependent thereon shall be fulfilled according to the desire of the testator; he consequently condemns the guardian of the widow and her son to hand over to the administrators of the hospital funds the jewels constituting the legacy made by the testator to the poor, but leaving him the choice of paying the sum in money value, as estimated by experts to be provided by the Court; the course adopted by the said guardian to be decided on within a fortnight.”

A gentleman of French birth, named Pierre Henri Baume, died some years ago at Douglas, Isle of Man, leaving a large sum for charitable purposes. He was born at Marseilles in 1797, and at an early age was sent to a military college at Naples, where he became private secretary to King Ferdinand. About the year 1825 he came to London. At one time he was a preacher holding peculiar views on theology, then became manager of a theatrical company, and subsequently got up a scheme for the establishment of model gardens. He took a lively interest in various charitable institutions, and expressed a strong desire to accumulate a great fortune, with the object of eventually endowing or establishing an institution, on principles which he had himself drawn up, for the education and benefit of youth of the poorer classes. By great perseverance and industry, and by subjecting himself almost to privation, he at last succeeded in amassing a considerable fortune, and bought land at Colney-hatch, together with a small estate called Chifont, on Dibdin-hill, in Buckinghamshire. Several obstacles arose as to the fulfilment of his educational project, and he was ultimately induced to abandon this idea. After living about a quarter of a century in London, he went to Manchester and engaged vigorously in a movement “public-houses without drink.” He also instituted Sunday afternoon lectures to working-men, which were carried on with varying success for several years. In 1857 he settled in the Isle of Man, purchased an estate there, and afterwards resided on the island. At Douglas he fitted up an odd kind of residence, the entrance to which he made almost inaccessible, and admission to which could only be obtained by those whom he had initiated into a peculiar knock. In this little den he lived like a hermit, sleeping in a hammock slung from the roof, for the room was so crowded with dusty books that there was no space for a bedstead or even for a table on which to take his food. He stated that his object in living in this condition and depriving himself of all comforts was to enable him to leave as much money as possible for charitable and educational purposes. He resided in this miserable place for several years; but his health failing him, he was induced, later, to remove, and died at a tradesman’s house in Duke street, Douglas. Public attention was directed to M. Baume’s affairs in London, in consequence of proceedings taken by him to evict a number of squatters who had located themselves on his Colney-hatch property, which was popularly known as “The Frenchman’s Farm.” M. Baume took out letters of naturalization, which enabled him to enjoy the rights and privileges of an Englishman, and to dispose of his property as he thought best. He left the whole of his real and personal property, valued at £54,000, in trust for charitable purposes in the Isle of Man, on his death.

The will of Agassiz, probated in June, 1874, begins thus: “The last will and testament of Louis Agassiz, of Cambridge, in the County of Middlesex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, teacher.”

Of him the Boston Globe said: “We should think the heart of every schoolmaster and schoolmistress in the land should bound at reading this simple announcement. The great naturalist, the peer of Aristotle, Linnæus, Cuvier, and Von Baer, calls himself, in the most solemn of all documents, ‘a teacher.’ There is, to us, something inspiring in this designation. All teachers, whether they are professors in colleges or directors in the commonest village schools, must be thrilled and invigorated by the statement that Agassiz is proud to enroll himself in their ranks. The good, grand, noble man, the apostle of pure science, the investigator and discoverer, the person who was preëminently a scientific force as well as a scientific intelligence dies with the feeling that his occupation was that of a ‘teacher.’ He, of course, leaves little or no property to his family; the noble woman, the bereaved wife, the constant companion of his intellect as well as of his heart, she who followed him whithersoever he was led by the spirit of scientific research, is, we suppose, the executrix of little but his glory; but the will is sublime, because it records the fact that Louis Agassiz was ‘a teacher.’ That was his occupation on earth. What it may be above, we do not pretend to know. One thing we know is this, that the simple preamble to his will must kindle into a generous flame every soul engaged in the great cause of education. ‘Louis Agassiz, teacher!’ but what a teacher! We preserve many memories of precious conversations with him on this question of teaching. He considered that teaching was a communication of life as well as of knowledge. A lad of ten years once contrived to get into the State House when Agassiz was urging the incontrovertible arguments for his ‘museum.’ We happened to jostle against the lad as he was leaving the hall, and asked him, laughingly, his opinion of the performance. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘I’ve been to many lectures, and have been tired to death, but Agassiz comes right up to my notion of the circus!’ When we told Agassiz of this queer compliment, he was much pleased. He wanted to see the boy who had been so unconsciously appreciative of the spirit of his speech. He knew that he had magnetized grave and elderly men, and that what he asked for would be cheerfully granted; but he desired to shake hands with the lad who thought he was as good as ‘a circus,’ and sent out from his deep lungs great roars of laughter in welcoming the testimony of his juvenile admirer.

“It would be idle to multiply instances of the thorough humanity and geniality of Agassiz. Everybody who knew him can tell hundreds of anecdotes illustrative of his sympathy with all forms of life, whether in the jelly-fish, the human infant, the developing boy or girl, the mature man or woman. Still his conviction of the immateriality and personality of mind was something wonderful in so austere a naturalist. We happened once to please him by defining a jelly-fish as organized water. ‘Now look at it through the microscope,’ he said. ‘But, Agassiz, the play of the organization is so wonderful that it seems to me that nothing but mind can account for it.’ ‘You are right,’ was his answer; ‘in some incomprehensible way, God Almighty has created these beings, and I cannot doubt of their immortality any more than I doubt of my own.’ His fealty to the rights of animals exceeded that of any great naturalist who ever preceded him. Incompetent as we are to give him his due rank among the great naturalists of the world, we think he excelled every naturalist who has gone before him in striking at the soul and individuality of all animals below man. It is impossible to convey in words the peculiar feeling which Agassiz had on this matter. Doubtless this large and genial genius is now satisfied. We cannot penetrate beyond the veil.

I give to	my sister	20
”	Jeanne	10
”	Pauline	6
”	Marie	6
”	Julie	6
I give to	Gustave	6
”	Eugénie	7
”	Annie	14
		75