The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-06-17


when the party who made the declarations was
outside the realms, and his handwriting to bill of
sale was in issue there his declarations prior and
subsequent to the signing OF the bill OF sale were
admitted.
by the caveatorS waonianother and distinct ground
This paper did not profess to be Will. Hoppe may
or may not have made will afterwards without
interfering with il, thought he had, and. there
fore his declaration onthat ground didn reflect on
the question whether OrnOt he had made this paper
He then quoted from the nots 10 Jackson vs. Knit
fen Sd American Decisions p. $50, as 10 the eXcep
lions to the rule against the admission OF deeara
TONS claiming that those did not come within any
of those exceptions and also referred to the case OF
Hall Phelps. 2d Johnson's Reports, p. 49, Whei
the question was the execution of q note ret non.
Mr. Lonis E. McComas followed on the same side
lie addressed himself to the bearing of the author
tiles on the issue in this easeforgery. He said that
the only English case in which tappeared from the
citations in the many cases and text writer's IN
which il was referred to- that forgery the direct
issue. was Doe Hardy. reported in LIST Moody a
Robinson, and counsel had not been able 70 get IL
He claimed that the declarations profered oy them
We're equally admissible in this case as IN cases OF
fraud and undue influences in reference TO wills
They all questions of fraud of deceit and this
the case of Doe vs. Hardy He referred TO Williams
on Executors, bottom page 260; Redhelds American
Cases on the law of wills p 1885, I'd Wharton on Evl
dence sec 1909 (which he said cited 70 Doe vs.
Hardyl LIST Redfed Wills p. oil; Starkle on Evi-
denee also cites Doe vs. HardyG Abbotts Trial Eyi-
Palmer 10th Adolphns & Ellis t71st E. c. L., p 40
Doe, demisee of Tatum vs. Catormore same, p 10
Sugden vs.. Lord St LeonaTds, 18th English Reports
PIP 5lS-532 tMokes editionl and Turner vs. Hand,
"a Wallace, Jr. Circuit Court Reports.
lie concluded by urging the court 70 follow lhe
case in Moody 4 Robinson; that no such sharp and
technical distinction existed as was claimed ana
this evidence should be admitted Recessitde rel
ON the ground OF both convenience and justice.
Mr.. Roberts followed for the eaveators; Ihey had
gone the same field and arrived at the same I'M
satisfactory frame of mind their brothers on the
other side They had found after laborious search
no authority which came sqnarely up 70 me issue
they had 10 contend with In this In thlS state
there were some few authorities which leaned upon
the question. but not fully. He referred TO Collins
vs. Elliott LIST Harris * Johnson, p j, ana similar
case D. i05 4 Harris & johnson Massey VS. Massey
p. l4i AleNanders British Statutes, p 9ioi fouke vs.
Kemp , Harris 4 Johnson. p l35.
Their opinion Inclined very much in the line OF
their authorities that the declarations Were NOT az
Missile. and ia those on one SIDE tolloNed the
Others they must bow TO fate they were very ihueH
of the opinion that all declarations must be raicu
out As to the bearing OF them, the paper Was
paper Just as il was. aud came there shrouded "a
doubt with all legal prescriptions against IT, The
law had provided a certain way Tor the prepafntOn
of such papers and Mr.. Hoppe, as justice de-, had
life Then, to the particular matter OF the ueca-
ralions offered by the eayeasees there was notnng
In them 10 enlghten the jury unless they could De
brought down refer TO this particular paper IN
issue aud much TO mislead. Il was violation OF
flesh and blood that he should take $1,000 and
give IL 10 stranger to his blood nY sush paps.-
nss =, say that HOPPE believed this paper TO he
will aud this would necessitate the courts deciding
sssther ar moi il secured $4,000 to MrS Byers
In conclusion, he called attention 70 the vague
Of these declarations ana rsaa " shss isv ~
a strong opinion against their admission, found ~
Ist Probate Reports, PIP, sss-loa- anu III BUSH
{EenCueky; reports. a..
lack Of authorities on the point at bar Ihs case
Ia Moody nsd Robinson gave them very lltls ngnh
because the citations OF II did not show what the
,I,.rlsr.tfof,s uers which were admitted. The ques-
ton was here u the authorities Indicate THESE al
missions Tor any pars s;; sIs ~ aet and did not
+ involve Mr. Hopes intentions. u us sas ms
signature. proof Of conlry hsis1 " ' ~ So
nature then proof OF Us evideneing ms INTENTION
was equally. inadmisSihle lis intentions had no
arIfctin 10 the fact OF this being his signature or
( uof m The cases la which declarations had been
admitted referred different issue was inSoiSed
ihr ifaud OF undue influence had bee,' praetieed
on him Again. they were qneStloas % Ms sat- VI
mind, In such cases TIE sstat9F 2Nn ny, ;
his Intentions. became material. Ipoh snls Fo.asl
he referred 70 Gri1lth vs.. Dinenderner Ssth MaIs
land pp. ISL. ts2 Has that anything - 10 VITA k
Transaction y here the tgStRtor l. not party where
tls charge j. that the thing done = torgery. lte
ease IN afth Maryland dcrided expressly they Msfe
aniy admissible 10 show his state % mihd - tne
sine ID ing the act The state Of mind OF the tes-
tatur Wls not at all Involved In this case anu any
evidence only tending 10 show thst : ihiteIH"eii'
,'oi Marshall here referred ~ the Of SiobaEt
and oshefs ~ nry.ig,a, - A, hi sih penn
syIvauia Reports. PIP lbs The issnes nete NeIe
clearly different iruia those OF traod ana eheae ~
efal Intention could not be evidence - - Ut va
sly q that paler Then ieo thsre wa ~
4 t,r5ra - 4, Mr. Byers and therefore, the decarA-
ti'Fs should DC brought down 10 the precise paper
s.e,,s al MeTShal here commented upon STOCKS
tialr " tsillisau th Md. Reports saying that tae
,tt - ,,s,lj in MS become esscnrity before the
iury and mislead thcm- Also. on shailefess -
faimsr ~ iesh Adophls hlils y Slsw ~ hsaa
writing of TIE VIII then. Alsoi ulon sne esss =,
toyian vs. Aesker " ash p1sshsa ,,.,,r ~ De-
laratloa IN tais 70 much 70 prove that NE pr
had ocen Hsas p q ie5a. 3 y sS ~
tslsm IN the comparison Of the two pApers aifeaaS
t.. sSajsh aid ne could add hns little what
had been aid ON question very douottnl, ana
roaid nus attempts "a reconcile ms seeming inse .
ssiencies Of the authorities. OF TO draw dstlnstioe
l.sveas ,hsH lie read froIa the case OF Iownshend
- Tow Tlshs1ld gh Gill; p. sla atd AAia le 1911 1871
not draw the distinction Mhisa INV , wv Ma
whether this evidence bad a tendency y essaelsh
the ISSUE here one way OF ~ s ssS
evidence 10 settle this than the Declarations % tne
Sarty 10 alone Of all the world knew whether er
ssa ns, az them named the amount In this paper
TfsSe Declarations khaEsed that his intention was
S5aioSsla5, b,s1, ssess ana .hose offered hy DE
eaVeafors. they only auduiAiorYi mtSns hasc
bccn invoked. and b. no means tended 70 slaeT .s
paFer 10 II forgery. Ii was admitted thai uiete
us no cas-. on All fours but when the DECLARATIONS
weru pertinent A. "a this case and the eharge o.
Eorxcsy directly maaie. the rules 81 ne eo.i4n
law skonia b relaxed aud charity shown 70 me
,Ttg .hsrs.si an, ire stearut0us admitted. which
xere consistent with the declarations IN thai pper
Amer some time spent In consultation ana exaiia-
hAiiuu OF tie authorities the Cpaft decned ~ 49,
nit ali thc declarations Judges Alvey and Mostef
taxing that view aud Judge Fearre uissaisg - "
the Admissssiliiy o. any q them - 49,,
Judge Alvey delivered the opinion. He SAID they
were In doubt from the authorities, DIX nc anu
JnslSe NofteF had eoneurrea that they must Dc ad.
lilcd IN she Interests Of truth nom the hatats ~
she ins ihsy Ss5S Tying a., sss elarac
Ter and must be the same on the osher sas, .n "a.
ciAshing opinions Of witnesses as 70 ths ~
ing. In thai state u The case tnels Ne;ala u -
sioubi and they were 10 assume the issue 70 DC
u vas forgery, or vas not They wefe as,yaiis
the very rs gsF itself and IN this II was alstin-
suishs from the cases referred %, wherc TIC aues
foa had heNn intent state OF lniii, unlhc IN
aaenee and maud Here ths qessslSa ~ ,ser vas
paper and the other side sAytiis there was nvS ~
Que aspect q TIE case y was s. \; ~ - h'f
tse deliberate carrying cut OF an Intention aeeiAEed
fOr long series Of years that was Dut sifs s
was he Negative They had more difficulty as 70
thesS declarations OF negative character, hniess
they were made definite and came down 70 Ihe aSt
in Question OF pointed H. but they would let boh
eofne in circumstances leading me hllt1 ~ ~
eide the question as issue. There was notnllg IA
me Argument from public policy, for the same OBJ
icctinr would apply 10 any other Iaroi isstlul2ily
they must take things as they ssfs si Nh Iiht n
one way and another upon the question a. Esuc.
In the negative form they certainly seemed 9 come
directly within the ruling in the case OF iurner q
Hand sd Wallace. Jr.1 They had coneiuded that II
they were admissible the che side, they were ON
The other whether they had the same force, the
same airectncss WAS for the jury 70 determine Il
might be that unless Of the pronefs were iol-
lowed up 70 bring them 10 . time near MS dsa.n,
they would be too remote and 10 uncertain anu INC
Court would have 70 see 10 that lhey VET NOV
ever NOT engaged in determining the mind Of the
teStator aud his declarations as rejecting upon the
probability OF his having Wsilien the paleI n view
OF all the testimony IN TIE case DelnS lnoFeea eef
mpst tale admissible
Judge PeArre said he decidedly of the opinion
that the declarations Of neither side we've adinls-
sible, and he had reached that conclusion upon an
Examination Of the question upon principle. Inc
question at bar was whether or not the paper was
the testators handwriting. The ordinary method OF
proving this was by those who were acquainted
with H. had seen him write, had seen Aeknoni-
edged 10 be written by him; this was being done,
and the proposition was whether OF mol nis uec
larations ppa or con- the one side showing ihei-
lion 10 uryide for the legatee or on the other 70
sive ali 10 his wife and grandchildren, hearu oy
fhiFd parties at periods remote from the eet cotlu
be offered in evidence 20 decide the balancing
Of the other testimony; suppose u,e l s snousu
think the weight of the ordinary testimony was
with the caveafors but that with these deciaratons
IN ID was OutNeighed. and they should then decide
for The eayeatecs what would that be but TO set up
a will of personal property disposinG OF SlnuOo by
The mere oral declarations Of the esator reheased
by third parties. Now, reverse ~ suppose they
thought the weight Of the ordinary testimony on
o. side OF the eaveaees but with the declarations
ih Il was outwegbed what would thai De buI 70 ae-
stroy will made in writing by declarations his
handwriting or not will or notZ IN case thls tes-
timony decides the1ury they would be setting up or
reyoking will. This would DO dangerous 70 the
community, dangerous 10 the public and II was
should be admitted in case of this kind They
,5ar t,nsyorn declarations and he couldn't see any