National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1873-01-03
AULICK WILL CASE.
VERDICT IN FAVOR or MRS. AulIck
-
Do

The Marriage Adm l,ied-The Te-,aior De
eiared 70 be sane, and the validity Of
the Request Of Mrs. Auiick Established
ut Law.
For some months the romance lovers Of the
District have been expecting that the present
session would furnish some Interesting reading
In the report Of what Ia termed the Aulick will
case, an Issue sent out Of the Probate Court
TO he tried by Jury In the Circuit Court. The
case, however. was given up by the relations Of
Mr.. Aulick, who have heretofore disputed the
validity Of the will. The case was a. folowsi
Dr. Ralph v. Auilck, o son Of Commodore Aullck,
lied very Suddenly At hls fathers residence IN
this city, some months ago, the family believing
At the time that he was unmarried. on the fol-
lowing morning young lady, employed IN the
| Treasury Department, known as Miss Oler, on
hearing the announcement Of his death read
/ from a newspaper, tainted, and 10 was soon
made known that the deceased was her husband.
| In October last the will OF the deceased made
in PhIiadeIphia in MAY lastl was died in the Pro-
hath Court by which he left his property-con-
Stating Of ten shares Of Cincinnati Gaslght Com
ssoSs worth sssI n.S SsScst 10 NJ VIM
and the Judge ordered that issues be made ioI
trial At the Circuit Court. Accordingly the ISSUES
were made As follows ~. Whether the tss,a'
purportinE to be his last will and TESTAMENT Of
sound and dlsposinH mind, and capable OF making
a valid deed or contracts and 81. whether n,
execution OF said paper was procured by frauu
artllce or undue influence.
When the case was called yesterday MT
| Dayldge, for the cayeators, was willing 70 admi
that he was satisfied that marriage had takei
place between the testator and the legatee, ant
he would not undertake, with the evidence nov
before him, TO go TO the Jury upon the question
| OF the capacity Of the testator to make Will, o
the other question Of the manner In which tn
requests therein were made. Mr.. Dayidge state
that the deceased person was amlcted win
severe malady, which attacked his brain, an
! that subsequently, the family entertained the Dc
LIEF that the disease had somewhat impaired ~
/, mind. In March, 1872, he was married In N
nelghborinR city Of Baltimore, and ne took plea
ure In stating that he had found that the marriag
was duly solemnized, although Il was aelande,
: tine marriage, and the knowledge OF 10 We
! ! carefully concealed from ms family IN III NJ y,
following the will wns made beqneathlng All NJ
estate to his wife. The bulk Of his property va
I IN stock and in justification OF the action OF IN
! family he would state that the stock was n
celyed by the deceased from hts father, yanuai
8, 1854, TO whom be gave paper o6lgAtln
. himself that he would neither sell nor dispose
said stock during the lifetime Of his father wit
Q out irEt consulting him. lie was young ma
: who Vas under solemn obligation TO his fatho
Y and yet he broke that obligation. Not beit
Y armed with that degree Of evidence which wou
J, warrant bis going to = Jury with PROBABILITY
y mis- young man should be dragged from the
Q dread abode. He would further state that aft
u comforting with the family they cheerfuly agree
mot TO further interpose objections to the pr
bate OF the will. he was willing that the cou
e or counsel on the other side should take al
le The Jury returned an Affirmative verdict
ie the first question submitted to them and neg
n tive one on the second thus fully sustaining y
ie viii, which will now be prohated at once.