The Daily empire. (Dayton, Ohio) 1865-1867, 1866-12-15

PROBATE cotnt --irpor polrrN.

.
John A.. Leis qad Hen,g Lets. Executors Of
Peter Leis, doceased, rs Cdtharino Iagha6,
aud James Hghdm
This case had its origin upon Iive differ
ent exceptions, being filed against the nc
eOunt recently filed In the Probate Court
by snid Executors. From the testimony In
the case II appeared that In 1856, john A.
l.els purchased the homestead of Peter
lels. deceased for S0,420, at which time an
advance Of $4,000 was made TO the pur-
chaser, his son, John A, Leis. Notes of
$500 each were drawn for the residue of
the purchase money, secured by mortgage
on the premises. II appeared also to have
been subsequently agreed between Peter
Leis and his sou John Adam, that he should
keep the father during his life time, as well
as his fathers wife, then living
In 1859. Peter Leis, being some eighty
years of age. was seized with q severe
sickness, from which nc never fully recov-
cred; but afterwards was very feeble aud
childish, and was rendered wholly ineom-
petent TO do any business for himself In
the month of September, 1853, Henry Leis
succeeded In getting him to sign note for
500, for work and labor which he claimed
he had done for him shortly after his.
Henry's, marriage, which took place from
thirty-five TO thirty-siX years previous to
the signing of this note. while In the mean
$1,000 had been made to him. as appeared
In the old mans family book, and by the
admissions of all parties interested.
In December 1865, Peter Leis died, leav-
ing will providing for nothing more than
the appointment otJolin A, Leis and Henry
as his executors. In August last his wife
also died, leaving the allowances made to
her by law from the estate of her late hus-
band, the testator In this case. These eX-
ecutors assumed the authority of estate
without administering on the same. and
charged Peter Leis' estate with the amount
Of 1913 l3. To this an exception was filed.
stating therein that this sum had not been
paid 10 the two heirs of the widow, but
which, during the progress of the trial
was adjusted between the parties IN inter
est.
The second exception was taken against
the allowance of the note made to Henry
Lels, which appeared from the testimony
to have been signed In the cellar of Henry
Leis. while the old man. his father, was
making a visit to his son Henry in Spptem-
Der, 1883. IL WAS urged that this note was
given without consideration, and that there
was nothing due thereon to said Leis from
the estate, and which was so held by the
Court.
The third exception was directed against
the account of John A. Leis, consisting OF
charges for moneys paid at sundry times to
the decedent, aud for clothing. carpets, har-
ness and taxes, u part of which account
was allowed by the Court, aud part re-
jected ON the ground Of not being sutll-
GENTLY proved TO have been y charge
against the deccdcnt
A contract for keeping the father and
wife was proven, as was also admitted, by
John A. Leis, and the greater part of this
account was rejected upon the ground
that the furnishing of clothing, carpetss
buggy, horse. harness and religious paper
was embraced In the contract OF keeping
the old man in accordance with the degree
of his former estate The fourth excention
was directed against the credits piyen nv
the executors to said estate. IL was admit
ted that at the death of Peter Leis. there
was W. l40 due upon note one year after
his deceasc, from John A. Leis, to the de-
cedent. The executors gave credit to the
estate for S2,465, having paid to Mury
Reedy, 1915 on a note executed to her by
decedent in his lifetime, which directed the
payment of this amount to Mary Reedy,
soon after the decease of Peter I.eis and
Catharine Leis,' his wife, in order" to pre-
vent n controversy" between Mary Reedy
and John Leis, another brother.
The Court regarded this note rs n Gift of
the deceased, inter UiUOS, to be carried into
effect by his executors, and which. under
the decision rendered. in the case OF Hamor
Us. Moore's administrators, 18th Ohio State. |
page 230) passed no further right to Mary
Reedy than title to the paper. as pdpe;,
and that II was not good testhmcntary dis
position, because not executed according to
law. as prescribed by the Statute of Ohio.
The fifth exception was directed against |
the book of decedent's advancements.
Large amounts were stated therein to have |
been advanced TO the different heirs, at
different periods and in unequal amounts /; |
IN N k,., +
to the correctness of the entries therein
made, and thereupon sustained the correct
ness OF book, overruling this exception
sixth exception was directed against |
the purchase OF "A tombstone. upon the |
ground that announcements had been made |
to the other heirs of the estate to such an |
extent that this expense would be borne |
by those entitled to the residuum of the cs- |
tate above, and not be shared equally by |
all. The Court held that there was no law |
an allowance for tombstones |
for the deceased, unless provided for by |
VIII, observing, however, that whenever n |
claim of this kind was made against an cs- |
tate, and no objection was taken. it was |
frequently allowed, as a matter arising out |
of affection for the deceased, and which |
religion and christianity would seem to |
require to be erected to his memory. and |
which expense ought to be paid out of the |
estate Of the deceased when sufficient
lt appeared that one of the executors, |
Rev. John A. Lels had been aiming to pre-
vent the many controversies among the |
heirs, and had endeavored to have ali salts |
tied as far rs possible, between whom these |
controversies existed. not being much in |
yolved In the disputes himself The Court
further held that the executors were in
diyiduaily liable for all the costs In the
case.
, a; Clay for the executors. G. w. Meyer
f. Thompson for the eXceptors.
THE EXECUTION IN FAYErrR COUNTY, |
OHIo.-Smith, whose murder case we men
TONED, yesterday, was hung between one