Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-07-29

luz " 49,, vav MIR J. did not deny That the court
had knowledge that there were o'ner paIeS n,,
: rrnosiny 10 be tcstamenarv papers OF Mr' H. hnl
if IN. court had knowledge OF Their vailuty-
tr be should like to know how they could be Known 10
br court udiciay unless those papers had been present.
ed for proha He denied that they 50 known to the
cnur, II was true they inserted in the former record
bu, even evidence they were not ndIca!!y known 10
the court unless the whole Of that record now before
them. The gentleman had alluded 10 papers. but he o"
fered word To shew that they were valid papers,
that they The writing Of the tcstlor it' ~,
lldes to the cancelling CT the will OF 81; but MI
would ask II there was any evidence before lh's c"u'
il had been cancelled. 1t true, that there was ''!
dcrce Of lis having been cu'; but docs this pFo"% '"t Il
The will Of John Randolph that WAS canceiIeu; n
J. thought it would be time TO prove Tue WIN o.
when it s!iewn that this vii! couu ho' " suS
We were DESTROYS 10 bring the whole subject; an" IL,
low the court TO decide, if from any circumstance e
will Of lc2i should be found not valid, whether t'e VIII
of 1919 was good ole. we say mere - S''' "
will which stands in The way OF the VIII I" loi'-,'''
il was done away by hc will Of 1921, but the cnui'Se 81"
the other side can IN no way shew ths but oy srW'ng
that The will of lS2 has hrcn FULLY proved ana 's'a
ed If the gentleman had been aided ny HIS nsu'' uc
curacy, he would not have been taken ny surprise "l
! our course /, is true, that William Meade gave
notice in lo34 that he should offer the papers III T.
hands Of Winsiow Robinson subsequently III 'se trai
of 1850 ~. wee DESTROYS Of trying tic two questions
bet wccn the wills Of -ll and 1882 together; but the
learned counsel opposed TO Tor reasons no donnt S'd
to themselves declined doing so, ana lhcy "cf" Srpa-
ratcly But at The tiue gave our notice, the cNst'
ence cf the will Of 1919 not known. And The learn
ed court will !.cocci that not until the year Alter was
it sen, into By Dr.. BrocAenbroush Both the VIII
of y and - presented III evidence III Inc FORMER
cast We were not under the necessity OF giving notice
ut olfrnc the via of 10 for probat it perfectly
within the rule il tied down to the notice as 1t
embraces any and az tcstamentary papers lhe TACT was
that all the Pap"rs-,he will of u end ITS codcIIs' ana
the will OF - stood the ground--th"y were all
offered evidence Il emalnS Tor the court TO de-
eide whether this will shall er set aside and the otn'r Ia
ken up. IL true, that some OF The testimony laNh "
nll,,nf al IN hp "A
in this but there was nuihng in that TO tie the p!a!nlil
down TO any particular prubat Mir j. thought 1t h'gt'-
" essential Tia, the should have the Whole sunccl
before them If the gentleman WAS not content WIN
his enpa vurS 10 show the insanity OF the estllur but IA
ted that the will - revoked by tile Will oi lS2,
| let him 70 shaw it by evidence.
Mi COOKE in reply said. that his objection TO the
course IF plaintiffs counsel, was, that it impossible
t. knew the result Mr.. G. then read written paper
containing the argument f'r his uIol!on He said the
motion nmltcrial onc-lt VAS not merely TO
relieve the defendant, lbson from the trouble OF gong
with tie case; but il would leave the plaintiff at !5"r
Il again 10 offer the viii OF ~ for proba II he saw ht
MIR L. conendrd that he offer Of that will at this time
for p-obl anomalous molten Had not the learned
counsel proceeded II The first will and testament found
Among the papers trccGen had the precedence over
the list will and testament, and therefore ought to have
| Ike precedence i'll being presented Tor probat: llry
proceeded us if the first instead of the last the valid
Instrumental if tins question OF the relative va
dy Of dccdS, and OF ciiS. The first deed Is para
mount. knew, and wr also know that the last Will Is
paramount The learned counsel will not deny that The
principle in regard wills is TO revert back fr" the last
to try that first. AID then go back I" the next and 50 on
He will not deny that such is the practice in the English
courts lie has told That it is the Practice IN III. English
courts to present all The !S;amenary papers together this
is tru.Siin tie last sill is taken up, and all The others
are also presented as evidence throw light upon the
in,entions Of the ,csiaor. Mr. Jones' No. say it Is
copctcn. for the court to examine the whole series
with regard TO their relative weight and radr.y] MIR.
| Cooke. Well, admit tils-hat they might examine the
rlolr-whot gentleman lie the
to take the will of 1919, and say that 1t was sound
will ,icR. bot that 1t is the last w-whcn there
spread bc!rc the court in the lcc"T'! 4" testimony in
former case, four other papers OF subsequent dates, i-
nru tnc;c Of equal validity and with these papers staring
them in The face, establish the will Of 10, the last
will and testament Of the lestaor. The has before
its eyes will Of 1921 leaving large f'rlune to judy
Leigh; and codci leaving large fortune TO Mrs.
Brvan-ani yet they asked to establish In" Will o.
10 the last will Of john Randolph nn:Hi outstanding
these papers. regard to which they have heard
no evidence. Will the court preiuccae The rights Of
Messrs Tucker aud Leigh and Mrs Bryan, and shu! lis
ewes papers known t. them 10 be- in existence; Mr. T..
could STE no grounds for derangng tho ordinary Course,
and prescribing with 'I!c first instead Of the last 1t had
moi been praclsrd by this court, III which the will oi
1852 was first decided Yet he did not deny that was
competent The Gentlemen to take this course IL
no, incumbent them to wade through other testament
ary papcrs; but unless they show that all the other pa
pers as not valid, this is not liz. right course They
have taken the ground that line exhibition Of PAPER,
written wholly b. john Rando pin. when sane, is sull
ciut to show that it is his last will and cslalncut-and
ask the court 10 pre- udicate rather 10 udjudcaic,
agan, the rights OF nhcr parties. This cours", Mr. g.
C0utcnGed would lead 10 ctancery suits TO aside the
will So established, aud until il aside could the
other wills be offered f plobat. He protested against
Il course which, if pursued, would keep this subject in
court for many years aud give ris" u lnumrra5c suits
If the court accr;ed to the wishes Of the plaintiff,
and this will were snsaluedlhe subject would go into
the court of chuncery, and II would require years to
move the rubbish which would have BEEN lcaped upon
the threshold Of justice to prevent the heirs at law Of the
tes;alor from enjoying their rights
nlsnber Of the court ASKED Mr. Cooke whether he
could not offer tir viii o II for prub" and thu, bring
| the whole question before The Court:
! Mr. CookE. Wuu!! it not be unhcaId.of anomaly
for the heir al w offer will for pobat. the validity
OF which h. contests; He would not-hc dare moi.
He is here with hi hands tied, and must wait
til it is the will of God, Of the other parties 20
bring his rights to :s:uc-lahr in the mean Will" to The
vcxatinnS OF Chancrry suit and 10 go through the
ausntagy papers from first to last. instead Of FROM last 10
! first
After some further discussion, the decision of the court
taken upun Mr. Cookies motion, and it was over
| ruled
.Joscph .Iarr examined for the defendant, Iohson.-
Witness had but little intercourse with Mr. Il. until al
ter his return from London in 1876. Had heard many
reports Of his insanity, hut witness never saw any thing
in him which seemed out of the way. Witness detailed
the circumstances Of transaction in 20, in which Mr.
Il. called at his Office before daylight, and sending
sage for him TO conle down. to meet him at Mr. Hatch
ers IN Manchester. Witness went there TO Mr. r..
but he had business with him. While there Mr. L.
cunvcrscd chiefly pnliiics and witness remembered
10 have heard him say: Il do not lake Jackson very
well but rs we cannot get johnny e. right, must
| unite on Jackson" Thee a balance in the hands
of Gowan IL Marx in Mr. RS favor in the fall of 81
which he drew out 1T that time. The amount about
! E!GOO. tiud recollection Of having Mr. Il. in
lSlQ or 1921 The witness stated his mamma.
zion some further transactions, which not deemed
material.
MIR COOKE then read. from the record Of the former
trial. the deposition Of Judge Leigh and the will of ~
and codci!s Of IS as evidence in this case.
ITO lie cOntinned.)