Charles
O'Conor.
9
holding (Chief Judge Church and Rapallo, Chief Judge, I believe, accepted, but some J., dissenting), that the State could not of them would not go. maintain the action because it had no title It is a mark of Mr. O'Conor's sense of to the moneys. For this Mr. O'Conor al justice — although not a broad sense — that lowed himself severely to reprimand the he attributed all the merit of the dethrone Court in an interview with a " Herald " re ment of Tweed to Samuel J. Tilden, as we porter. On this occasion the "Albany Law learn from Mr. Bigelow's sketch. Journal " observed : "We fear that ripe age MR. O'CONOR'S WILL. and distinguished ability have not improved Mr. O'Conor's discretion." (That was not It is really fortunate that Mr. O'Conor was written by the present writer.) not in a position to comment on the audacity Mr. O'Conor, in 1875, published the of the courts in even entertaining an argu various arguments and opinions in the "six- ment against the validity of his will! His millions suits" in a volume entitled "Pecu old enemy, the Court of Appeals, — although lation Triumphant, being the record of a but two of the judges whom he had cen sured and impugned were left in it, in four years' campaign against official mal versation in the city of New York, A.D. Sloan v. Stevens, 107 N.Y. 122, were called 1871 to 1875," with a "Memorandum" on to construe a codicil to his will. The containing no offensive comments, but thus official .syllabus is as follows: — patting on the back the dissenting judges : "The will of O'C. contained various devises "Our ancestral jurisprudencies denied to us and bequests to different parties, and also this by a lean majority of one, over-rulingChurch, clause : ' I hereby release all claims or demands our universally reverenced Chief Judge, Ra which I may have at my death against any person pallo, the chosen representative of our great or persons named in this will.' At the time of the execution of ihe will, the testator was con metropolis, and Miller, the most recent recipi ent of our people's favor." The Chief and ducting, as counsel, a litigation for defendant; Judge Rapallo seem to have risen in his favor the latter was not named in the will. At the since the "cumulative sentences" decision! close of the will, the testator revoked all former In 1875, an act was passed, giving to the ' wills and codicils.' By a codicil, subsequently executed, which the testator described therein people of the State instead of the city the as the ' first codicil to his last will," he released right to sue,' and a recovery was finally had, three persons named from all claims against under the leadership of Mr. Wheeler H. them. Two of these were named in the will; Peckham. But owing to the delay caused by one was not. Immediately following this was a Mr. O'Conor's blunder, the ill-gotten wealth provision giving to defendant, whom he described of the defendants had been dissipated by as his ' faithful and honorable friend,' all books, the time a recovery was had, and the city papers, etc., relating to the claim in litigation. In an action to recover for legal services ren realized nothing, as I am informed. It is probable that there w as not at the time dered by the testator in said litigation held, that and has never since been any considerable defendant was not released from liability by the difference of opinion among the lawyers said provision of the will." Judge Finch, in the opinion, concedes and judges of this State as to the soundness of the doctrine declared by the Court, in the general rule that the will includes the either case, nor as to the grave impropriety codicil, the two constitute one act, and the of Mr. O'Conor's conduct in the matter. execution of the codicil is a republication of the will as of that date, " and the two He subsequently, in a Christian spirit, for gave the Court for his abuse of them, and instruments are to be read together as if invited them to dinner in New York. The their provisions had all been embodied in
