The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-13

the parties named in this paper are the true
| names OF the heirs OF Nine Jgmel.
Mr.. o. Conor here read a conveyance of re-
| cent date II m the hers.at-law of Mime Jumel,
| IN winch, in consideration of $50, 0O0 they re-
hpquish to Nelson Chace all their Tlgnt and in
! terest IN the property OF M'me Jumel.
William G. Wetmore sworn - Mime Jumel
was client OF mine from 1926 to the time OF her
death; saw her AT Saratoga on her last visit
there; she spoke 10 me then about making her
VIII; subsequently, saw her frequently at her
house on Washington Heights, when she spoke
ABOUT making her will, and asked me to select
some OF the suitable institutions TO which she
ought to give a portion of her property; she
SAID she did not want to give anything to re-
gous societies, but to institutions OF charity; in
1860 bad long talk with her about her will
out could not get out of her what she wished
TO DO with her property; she was continually
talking. about her lite in France, her driving
coach and four on the Boulevards, her
acquaintance with the Duchess de Berry and
Others, and could rot pin her mind down to
the subject OF the Will, and gave it up; since
1857 did not consider her capable of executing
will, and always wrote down whatever she
wished at the moment with regard 70 the dispo-
sltlon OF her property, knowing very well that
IL could never be confirmed as her will; NV
object, as friend of the family, was to keep
control of the old lady, lest If refused TO do as
sEe wished, she might 90 10 some other lawyer.
~ait wno nOo S kno m wing her as well ! did, would
me plalnt11s here rested their case.
THE DEFENSE.
Without any opening address to the Jury. the
defense called as the first witness
John NJ. Holland, who testified that he was
one OF the witnesses to the last will of Mime
Jumel. l have looked over the copy OF nv
deposition in this case, made before | went to
Europe last summer, and it Is correct.
Rev. John Howard Smith sworn-I am de-
tendant in this cause; first went to CarmausviIle
IN the spring of 1854, the rector OF the Church
of the lntercession there; Mime JumeI owned a
pew In the church at that time; in 1859 found
her pew occupied by another party; did not
see Mime Jumel from 1853 till 1862: at that time
she sent for me and went she told me she
bad been sick, and should not probably live
iong, and wished me to dispose OF her pro-
periy; she said sue wished to give something
lor building church, and asked me if Sl0O 600
would be enough; she also said she wished
to bequeath me a legacy, and desired to will
her property to charitable individuals and So
cletles; told her should decline any personal
legacy, and also declined, until | mad time to
fully consider the matter, TO advise her in any
way with reference TO her will; she afterwards
sent Tor me again, when she asked me TO briu"
her lawyer 10 make her Will, which / declined
to Go, as did not wish TO be mixed UP in the
matter; subsequently | saw her again, when |
tolo her would withdraw my opposition to her
i"aVlng me personal legacy; this was alter ]
had consulted Rev. pT. Tying, and had also
spoken 10 MIR. 0Conor ard Mr.. Bradford (wit.
ness shows paper; that is q copy OF a letter
sent to Nine Jumel. ' ...
new copy OF the win was made, at her re-
quest, aud no change IN the will was made
from that time ill the Will was executed; no
person took hold of Nine Jurners hand or
guided her in any way on the occasion of exc
cutting the viii; / had never heard any suggas-
ton OF the incompetency OF Mime Jlmel at that
time to make viii; had never seen anything
TO indicate such incompetency, and had sup
posed her in any way incompetent I would
have scorned to have had anything to do with
1t; believe her now to have been fully compe-
tent; at the time of the execution of the will !
supposed that Mr.. Chace and Mrs. Perry were
both Interested in the reeiduary clause and
never heard to the contrary until after Mime
Jumel's death.
The evidence for both sides closed here, and
by conseLt of counsel, the case was submitted
to the Court without argument on either side.
Judge Barnard briefly CHARGED the jury, tell
ing them the simple and only question for them
to determine was whether Mime Jumel, as the
time Of the execution of the will, was OF sound
mind. On this question the only evidences was
in favor OF the plaintiffs, who were seeking to
break the will. That evidence consisted of the
testimony of the relatives and intimate friends
OF the deceased, and Of skilful and accomplished
physicians.
1t was for the jury to determine whether, on
this evidence. the VIII in question could be con-
sidered the act Of person of sound mind, such
as would legally qualify her for the execution
of such en- instrument.
After an absence OF five minutes the jury re-
turned with verdict for the plaintiffs, that
Mime Jumel was OF unsound mind at the time
OF the execution of the Will.