The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-11-09

EOu uhu u9Elbeu ten SHARES OF bank
stock to Leanne, his servant, when n
fact he had made no such devise either
In the will or codicil TO which the reel.
tai refers. THERE'S the will and cOdteil
| In contest before you, relating. in the
language OF the recital, to the negroes,
and especially to the servant Leanne-
giving two to Elizabeth Thompson and
two to another of his children, until
twentyoone years OF age, and declaring,
especially and bequeathing to IJeanne
her freedom; yetthere is no one share,
much less ten shares, Of bank stock
given to Leanne in the Will or codfcil.
Yet It "relates to" his "negroes, and
especially to Leanne, y and 1t concerns
her in that interest which concerns us
most on this side of the grave-her per-
sonaI liberty. And yet the recital in
this codicil, written by George Thomp-
son, is not true Gentlemen undertake
to explain 1t by getting up dust about
the will of 1852. I say the context OF
that will is not before the jury. Then
say If you examine these notes, which
are claimed to be notes of that will,
they too are in the hand writing OF
George Thompson; and you will look
through them in vain for bequest OF
ten shares of stock to his servant girl
Leanne, for it is not there; and If you
were to find it there, it would be con-
trary to that other fact, for the tesLi-
mony of the bank officers is that he had
no ten shares there at that time. So fix
it as you will this man has botched this
business and overleaped himself in at
tempting to make a will that would
stand in a court of justice. g., Fs...tstl d.
Then, to conclude the whole, see this
man Thompson remorseleSsly pursuing
with his rapaciOus greed the children
of his own dead sister here, towards
whom this old man had manifested the
| TNtnnat fRnHnFnnu1 Nf Nuh0aa IL
mother he had said, she was his "chsr-
ished child, that he was attracted to her
and won to her by her gentle charities
that charity which we are told is the
"diViuest OF all the virtues" and which
HcoVereth a multitude of SINS" He
had told more than one she was his
cherished child. He told the Bishop
he had the tenderest regard for her
memory, and intended to make ample
provision for her children. And yet
this man Thompson, in the last hours
of Daniel SteenrOd's life,-in the month
of March, 1S64-Only about six weeks
before he died writes out with his own
hand-God only knows where or on
whose suggestions new cOdicil to his
| tather-in-laW's will, and has IL attested
by two persons, Kiel and Porter, who
manifestly know nothing of the origin
of the transaction and don't know
whether he ever, read it nil or ever re-
quested it to be done, and brings it
into court and attempts TO defeat by
that cOdicil-as they attempted by the
other codicil touching the distribution
of the thirty thousand dollars received
for the Mills farm-the expressed and
declared intent of this old man toward
the children of his dead daughter, AS
declared down to the very hour of his
death.
Gentlemen, it won't do. L say in the
| InnRnRRn nf this law which I hnun Il
here, it becomes the Court and jury in
case like this, especially where the
testamentis the testament of an aged
man, to be very careful before they give
it their support by their verdict or find
ing. i call you back to the language OF
guage of Erskine on this subject where
in Justice Davies says, in delivering his
opinion in the Parish will case, that
Erskine Justly and truthfully adds:''
o That the protection of the law is in
no cases more neededltlInn II is In those where
comprehend more objects than one, and most
especially when that one object may be so
forced upon the attention of the invalid as 70
smut out all others that might require conSid-
eration' and therefore the question which
their lordships propose to decide in this case
| Is not whether Mr.. Baker knew when he WINS
giving all his property to hisNFife, and xclti-
ding all his other relations from any share in
1t; but whether he was at that time capable
I
understanding their respective claims upon
| his regard and bounty, and OF deliberately
| them nom any share Of his property. = -
And remember those other words Of
the same authority. He must have un,
derstood "the manner in which it was
to be distributed" by the paper he
signed. ~isss Tis1r@s1 7is7
If, gentlemen, you will carry that
with you to your room, as the Law
question, do not fear the verdict Of
your judgment. Indeed, have pro
ceeded step by step in this hurried ar.
gument-all too hurried in case in.
volving such important interests and
governing prlnciples-with perfect
assurance this Jury will be satisfied
and that is all, His Honor will tell Won
is required-upon the testimony, thisis
not the valid last will and testament
or any part q 1t, of Daniel Steenrod,
1t cannot bethe valid last will and ties.
lament of Daniel Steenrod, for the rea.
son 1t works gross injustice to the
children of his dead son, for Whose
memory he expressed the tenderest re,
| gard, thirty years alter he was in his
| grave, when he said that he "pitied''
his "poOr Edwards" when he said Itc
Edwards widowed wife that he held
this trust for her children; when he gave
her an annual bounty, and finally took
her son to his house and advised him To
go on the property he held in trust for
him, and In doing so TO do justice to
himself, and Justice to the memory OF
his dead father by buying out his sis.
tiers. That he said that, 1 do not believe
a Juror doubts. know none ofthe
counsel on the other side doubtsit. They
attempted to break down the witness,
but utterly failed; and instead OF break
ing down tho witness Daniel Steenrod
1nuuIFH .Vyat fhRhnnk NINhs 4. l.
neighbors, bearing true witness to all
her assertions: that the Carroll estate
was intended for Daniel when he was
gone. Then comes that other declara-
ton of this old man, at utter variance
with the provisions of this will, that
the Mills farm was for his unfortunate
son, George. He refuses to sell it for
that reason, seeks out neighbor to
purchase an additional right Of way to
the road, to secure that son against
danger by the floods. And finally
when the Bishop persuades him, heselis
1t that George may have the money
safely invested and draw the interest ;
and after he has been juggled out of it
| by the Interference of these parties he
still supposes 1t ia all right and saws IL
is the best arrangement that could be
made for George. This is the testi-
| mony in the case; and yet the gentle
| men ask you to say this paper is the
last Will and testament of this man,
The Language of the law, and the LAM
guage OF common sense is, that lift is
contrary to the declared Intentions and
purposes of the supposed testator, both
before and after making the paper,
1t Is not his will and testament.
think 1 have said enough. and more
than enough, to satisfy you, on the tes-
ttmony OF the witnesses, it is contrary
to the declared intentions of the testa-
Il ~