Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-07-29
Esas WI ESEHa'.
(From the Richm0nd C0mpitcr.)
TIE RANDOLPH WILL CASE-(C

From the Richmond Compilcr)
TIE RANDOLPH WILL CASE-(Conf'"nrd)
TUESDAY, 9th July.
~, f.oorr counsel for the defendant. Hobson, rose
n make 4 motion, which, it sustained would suspend
the testimony on his part until The plaintiff should make
what mirh lie considered prtma fac'c case In order
to explain The grounds Of his motion, 1t was necessary
- rerert to the former proceedings in this cour, in
rard to the wills OF Mr. T. 1t would be retne'nbercd
that in July 1884, paper presented for proba pnr-
portiur to be the will Of John Randolph Of Roanoke
bearing date the lst Of January lo2-that on the sue
ceedng day Henry St George Tucker offered another
naper purporting to be codIcil, bearing date Goth hu
aust 1881 in London On the next day VIM. Alcadc was
admitted as defendant to the motion for proba and gave
notice that ne would OFFER WI! OF Mr X with cool
Gil ANNEXED bearing date 9th Dec. 1921 then in the
hands of Winslow Robinson Clerk Of Charlotte Court
and asked for writ of duccS tcrum tor the production
in court Of the papers in the hands OF Mr. ttnhlnson
Nothing more was done at that time, and in Deccm-
ber 1874 Winslow Robinson produced the papers
ferred TO- and then the motion for proba OF the will OF
1882 was renewed In the progress Of the case en-
try made that the defendant, Meade, had offered III
evidence the will of 1891 with various codclls thereto,
having on the previous 9Th Of July given notice that lie
would move the for proba Of that will. The pro-
bat was tried in July, lc5 and notice given that the
will of 2l would be contested TIE ground Of lis has,
ing been cancelled. The will Of 1852 admitted to
proba by this Court that decision was reversed b.
the Court of Appeals, III written opinion gwen in A!9y
last Now it appears, that the counsel OF W. Meade,
abandoning their intention of Offering the Will OF ISL
which is judically known to this court for probat. have
seen fit 10 PROFOUND another testanenary paper of pre-
vous date. Mr.. c. said, that although he did not object
to this course, he bound to suppose that from the
testimony adduccd in the former case, the party pro-
rounding this WILL must hav been convinced of the i'm
possibility Of sustaining the will of 1921, and knowing
the usecssncss Of offering will written by in
upsound state Of mind, therefore driven to the
necessity of offering the will of 1910. 1t appeared
TO Mr. c. that those who 9 i've notice that they will
produce tcs,amentary paper, which is p2ma ncc good
and valid until srwn 10 lie Otherwise and Who suhse.
o
burthen of proof that the last will is valid lie
tended that they bound scw that the subsequent
will sound for could not be urged that the de-
PENDANTS bound to produce rebuttng testimony I'M
til the plaintiffs should make out PrtmH j"cte case
Let us concede that they have proved that the eGtato
was sane when he wrote this paFer-s that does not
prove it be his last will and testament because this
has before subsequent samcntary papers which
are nrina facic good lie therefore urged that was in
cumbcnt the propoundcrs of the will of 1879 toshew
that the subsequent wills of John Randolph are not
good tcstancnary papers, and that they afe not valid
II might be supposed that this motion o. Frederick
Hobson, to suspend the testimony on his part, cane
rather late but the apology for that was to he found
in the fact that the defendants had been taken By
surprise by the motion for proba of the will OF lel9.-
The court would he the convinced of this,
when Mr.. c. stated that the counsel for the plaintiffs
said a consultation of counsel early in the term,
that they should offer the will Of 1921. 1t would also
be recoccted, that notice was given at former
term of the intention to offer the latter will the
present occasion. These facts would shew, that The
defendant taken by surprise. When the counsel for
the plaintiffs announced, after the examination of Doc
tor Brockenbrough that their evidence was closed 1t did
not at the moment the counsel for Hobsnn that
the plaintiffs had ut 10 stop there Hence The
sci for FIobSon went into rebutng testimony, which he
now thinks lie not required 10 do. Ii the Eotton
which he made for the suspension Of testimony
the part Of the defendant Hobson, sustained, il
would him great expense and delay, which nc had
4 right ask for, although that consideration
Diary. Mr. G. contended that the plaintiff, by attempting
IF
and testament Of John Randolph, bound To show that
all later wills Of The cstator not valid We there
fore move that we be allowed to suspend rebutug tcs
mony, until the plaintiff shall have established by evil
dencc that the other testamenary papers not valid
Mr. e. here submitted his motion in writing to The court,
Observing that if it should be sustained by the court and
the should say to the counsel tor the plaintiff that
prma faeic case was not made out-and they should
choose 20 uthcr the court must decide against
the will of lSl9-and then would remain 70! the cdun
sci to decide what they would do next
Mr. JoSEs, of counsel for the plaintiff, said. that while
the learned counsel the other side had complained Of
having been taken by surprise-he had most effectuay
retaatcd MIR. J. and his associates, for he (hlr
did remember that he had been more surprised
than at the present motion lie did not clearly the
object Of the learned gentleman but ne supposed was
to lay the strong hand Of the court upon the plaintiff,
and TO stay the progress of evidence until decision
could be had the will of 1921. On that supposioa
he would say few words the legal cltc, of the mo.
ton. 1t could not be doubted that where there were
NUMBER OF teStamentary papers, consistent and
others inconsistent with each other all these papers might
be otfercdtor proha together separaeyf
inconsistent here might lie objection to the
which the plaintiffs counsel mad taken but was thought
by hem TO be the best course TO produce ultimate
decision. MI H. admitted that the will Of 1921 was
prina tacie good and valid paper and if sustained it
does away with the will Of 1919 But the question now
before the court that of competency to make will
and it embraced the superstition that at one time The ,ns
tator was and at another he not, competent and j,
the investigation of the question: it necessary to
look to the various periods Of his life 1t essential
to ascertain at what periods lie was affected by haucua
tions important differences would be drawn from the
facts to influence the final decision Of the court lie
may have been insane in 1919, and perfectly in
1921. If there was time between 1919 and 1921 when
he was competent to make will, the court must put
its finger the period And therefore it was necesSa
ry that this will should be before the court that it might
say whether, and whcn there period at which he
was competent Wemay produce in evidence other tcs-
tamenary papers; but the court will that they stand
in very different light when offered evidence, and
when presented for probat. At the former trial, no
other paper was before the court for probat but the will
of 80. Other papers were presented in evidence very
important 10 show whether the will of 1882 consist
ent with the ongchershed opinions Of the esa,cr-
1t essential to ascertain whether from 1915 to 1871
Mr. Randolph was insane, and the best mode
to have this tesamentary paper officially before us.
Mr. J. objected to the suspension Of the evidence on this
will until they should make out case because they
ought TO have all the papers before them iudcialv in
order to decide question between two different wills
and contended that the course pursued by the plaintiffs
sanctioned by the practice in the English courts
He had shewn that the object of their was that