New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-13
NEWYoRK DAILY TRIBUNE, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 49, 1866.

g i' % tbort reading H. and she wished somebody
read !oI Der nd a,aed Me TO do so Iial que ll' u
Iai tone of voice slowly and distinctly she remaining G.,"
white OF quiet serious attention scarcely moving except Nl'i
- How iiJ Ia sr1lrt voui 4 when read ia the will
d. provision Of to Nelson Chase on bonded mortgage
Win interest 10 accrue scmianuualy she said that must be
end dvn t a OO0. she also said that the 10000 70 Mr.
Perry must h. down 10 $1,000 then read the provision
lola him - 600 Shall IL p said Il Yes that
al that said the subject then read 70 he legacy o.
5000 10 Mrs Perry THAT must be cn on she said ana
$500 10 Mir William C. Wetmore must be cut OF she said
there the appointment o. n as WC a ana
ment she said must be- cut off, as she would have no
lawyers In that provision % SJ vnr ,ss nm
had forgotten TINT m our yOhte51.loh ~ nuu
Intention provide for the building OF rectory and sus
re.tcd fiat tie legacy the church 10000 she had
provided for land for that purpose OF 100 feet
mont and rear and 30 feet depth suggested that 1t be IN,
creased to IN 'front.' and and 2l feet IN depth ana
that 600 should be- added for me Dhhs 81 ihe evoS 20
This she aeurd then requested that she would not cut down
Mr. Perry legacy she said she must do that i was TOO
much shr was frivolous, and would waste u ell IN folly
urged her 10 leave at 20 COZ; at last she said i suppose
must split the difference and viii pat Il down at s3Oi
solcit then told her would nave me Ni eqpieu an
would do ucrne these alterations was mere again
She had thought the matter over and had concluded She could
not let llr Fcny shand $1,000 bat must be put at
$1,000; copy Of the will was made
O. Was that new copy executed \. II was 80,
d who suggested the Of tho eSecutors A. did at
her request they residents OF the vicinity She appointed
DAY IT, and ON the morning OF that day went 10 see
company with Mr. Holland and Mr.. Butler,
Q Did you hear The testimony Of Mr. Holland ieadi A.
o. Was il substantially correct A. TWAS
q Did any person take hold Of Madam Jumes hand or me
pen while she wrote her signature a. NO SIR Inc alleged
viii witness and he Identifies as tho paper exc
n Have Won stated everything that you ever said to Madam
Jumel that looked like urging her make wili A. Yes Sir
q Did YOU In any other manner than You have now
stated suggest her the contents OF her VIII ~ No SIR
O. What was your opinion Of Madam Jumels capacity at
the time she executed that WILL and down 10 that time A.
never had heard a suggestion to lncompetency had
never thosght Of mcompetency and II had should
] frausn 4 thoroughly
tency and 20 this day, that must De allowed 70
say that the responsibility Of any settlement that subject
Observation-Disclosures miad about that; how was
her memory A. 1t somewhat capcousi sometimes she
would forget other times it would be extremely tenacious
O. DO YOU remember any acts OF memory respecting any
thing II what A. Yes Sir she had committed to mehory
and with very slight mistakes Womb rPca our lon % PRAYER
for morning and evening In the prayebook one OF them par
cglaIy she would repeat win very sig9t n'st9Hss
q What was your opinion at the time that VIII was e5eeua
as 10 whether Mr. Chase and Mrs Perry were Interested IN the
resduary cauei A. believed them both TO be interested in
the rcsduary clause.
q Can YOU tel me when it that yon dsabnsed Of
your impression the interest OF Mr. Chase in The resdnay
clause 2 \. Never until after her DEATH
The testimony Of Mr. Seaman the amanuensis who accom-
dra Tor Le will M The time referred 10 by the last witness
was then read evidence Madam Jume up in her
He believed Madam spoke dapproyng Of Of the lega
cos persons connected with her She took the paper and
s1id he would and Mr. WemOe at bis office
She seemed listen atent,y 10 the reading OF the paper
The contested will then read to the jury The Rev j.
Smith then recalled and examined follows by Nj
O. You have spoken Of Mrs Jumers competency in your
opinion did Dc understood that that competency
you spoke ~ continued the end Of her LIE A. spoke Of
The time this will was executed
o did not kuow but You meant continued the end OF
her no, Did 81 \. do not suppose u did.
o. When do YOU suppose she became incompetent A.
could not answer that question: month before Der deain
o More than month that she was incompetent A.
not tx the time Of her ncompctcncy.
Q DO YOU mean 20 she competent sH months before
her death A. think she competent at the time this S
executed ard for than year afterwards heard OF
chac made against her nephew VIM C. Chase She made
month. before her death. hc sdler bank book right
and asked TO explain b. which did on one or two occa
Q pd yoarins at that time she vas sane and competent
The contestants than called Mr. John = Butler one Of the
witnesses o the 81 the viii by Mrs Jume VINO iden
uhcd the viii Lat which be bad witnessed and stated that
Madam Jume wandered good deal n mind during the time
Mr. smith had to call upon her two or three times 10 sign De-
Mr. OConor then stated that the parties had offered 10 sub
nit tie without Argument lie would however call The
attention Of the Court "a The ease 81 Hopper ~ ~ l. as 70
" Il. mudc 900 q disorlcTcd state Of mind.
CHARGE TO IHE JURY.
le Cont aid mat n wa, esent lha a TOE .
There I've questions 10 b. considered IN ih,f luc
which follows trst Did Eliza b Jgmel IN the com
paiat this action named die % the time and szc and pos
es.ed as ~ ihe said complaint a.egedi secondly Were he
Tunnel Tranchc and Louisa Jume Maddox the neat OF lin
and law OF the said Eliza Jumcl deceased alleged
ln hc said complut Thirdly Did the four plaintiffs In his
action last named convey the plaintiff Nelson Chase
the sad complaint aegcdf Fourhly Is the paper writing
18th dy 81 April the year rt3 any part thereof the will or
testament Of iLc said lila H. Jumc deceased Filthy Is
date the h day ~ July IN The year l-t3 void alleged In
ony u The answers IN this acton A. 90 the three first there
seemed dispute A. 70 the others the jury 70 dctc-
mine b Evidence The chief point OF decision whsner
Madame Jsmc the time OF the execution Of th' paper
called her VIII Of sound and dsp0ug mind She "as very
old lady The evidence u Der family bcot theu anu
wholly unc"nmdctcd exhibited marked c'ahge IN ler ue
Saratoga She taken home oy her friends and
relatives the way exhibiting some cy4lsmel anu atei nef
return subject dcuslOns among which was that OF
hpprcheude hy hf friends III these were delq
s1ns the ury must find she not IN dspOsabo mind
ami bot H. was moi rendered very probable from the ey
dpoe of he two oo physcinns called Who testified that she
s rnfei transact business. II the will the
viii Of reon then her property must TO her bcat
lsv'
VERDICT.
Tie Jury then retired and after deberation Of about FIVE
minutes announced through their foreman the verdict Tor the
plaintiffs on the ground that Madame Jumel OF unsonnd
mind.
The Cont then directed the jury TO return the
issues presented, and they responded as follows
10 the first question the jury answered, Yes
TO the second question tie jury answered Yes.
10 the third question the jury answered Yes.
To the fourth question the jury answered No.
10 the fifth question the jury answered No.
Mr. OConor then stated that the request Of the other side
they had consented that the jury might find supplemental
issue the following.
And Jury ind that there coercion fraud or IN.
due influence used by John Howard Smith Ia respect the
papers
1he Jurors after consultation replied through the foreman:
we can lind that divided the subject
The Court then adjourned.