Per Curiam.
Motion for reargument denied.
Motion to take additional proof under section 309 of the Surrogate’s Court Act denied upon the ground that there is no necessity for the exercise of that power in favor of the claimant Bates, since all the matters on which she now relies may be presented to the surrogate under our decision, which expressly reserves that right to her.
Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and O’Malley, J., dissent.