The will is peculiar in another way. The testator, after its execution, took the liberty of striking out some of the provisions without having the amendments witnessed. He failed to make a codicil, but does say that he did the scratching himself.
Danger in Mutual Wills
The wills of Mrs. Mary Louise Woeltge and Professor Albert Woeltge were filed in the Probate Court at Stamford, Connecticut, on September 20, 1910, and they reveal a somewhat unusual situation. Professor Woeltge was the first to pass away at Walpole, New Hampshire, on September 12th. His wife died there a day later. Both left wills executed April 11, 1895. Professor Woeltge left all his estate to his wife and appointed her sole executrix. Mrs. Woeltge by her will left all her property to her husband.
Professor Woeltge inserted a clause by way of explanation to his nephew, Albert A. Woeltge, and his niece, Lillie Woeltge, both of New York, of this disposition of the estate. It was, in effect, that the money by which he acquired the property disposed of in the will came most, if not all of it, from his wife or her mother.
Professor Woeltge left two letters, one addressed to his wife and the other to his niece and nephew. The letter to his wife carried a direct expression of desire that on her death all the money he left her go to the children of his brother William, “that they might know that I loved them best after you.” The question arises as to who will get the property.
The Worst of Women
Henry, Earl of Stafford, who followed the fortunes of his royal master James II., and attended him in his exile to France, married there the daughter of the Duc de Grammont, at the end of the seventeenth century. The marriage was a most unhappy one, and, after fourteen years’ endurance of the disgraceful conduct of his wife, he wrote as follows in his will:
“To the worst of women, Claude Charlotte de Grammont, unfortunately my wife, guilty as she is of all crimes, I leave five-and-forty brass halfpence, which will buy a pullet for her supper. A better gift than her father can make her; for I have known when, having not the money, neither had he the credit for such a purchase; he being the worst of men, and his wife the worst of women, in all debaucheries. Had I known their characters I had never married their daughter, and made myself unhappy.”
Took the Son’s Part
Sir Robert Bevill, Knight, who held an official position at court under James I., was the representative of an old Hunts family, and held by entail the estates of Chesterton in that county. Dying in 1635, his will, which it appears was made within a very short time of his death, was proved, and in it occur the following clauses relative to his wife and his daughter’s husband, with whom he died at enmity. These vindictive behests, be it observed, are preceded by a very devout and godly preface, bequeathing his soul “into the hands of its Maker, stedfastly believing in, and by the merits of, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to obteyne free pardon and forgiveness of al my sinnes, and at the last day to have and receive a glorious resurrection.”