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

Re-examined-Mrs. Bsers and She were cousins
she thought, and was so told by Mrs Rachael HOPPE
DR.. Herring was then recalled. but Col. Maulsby
objected to his estifying the objection was over
Witness-IIad conversation with Hoppe in his
Office in the latter part of September or in October
1880: Hoppe was lying on the lounge. and the sub
jeet was Mr. Shrivers death and will: Hoppe re-
marked he would have to make will too, and was
examining his papers and looking over them with
a view of making Will; some one came IN then
and the conversation ceased about two weeks be
fore his death he sent for witness one night told
him he was now about to make his WILL had spoken
to JOS NJ. Parke to making it, when he got 1t ar
ranged in his mind he wanted Parke TO write II;
wanted witness to act as executor. ana snnse,
quently. in the same conversation. said he wanted
Col. Longwel 10 cooperate with him in the settle
ment of the estate.
The Court said this testimony would have TO be
followed up by something more definite
Mr. Roberts-We propose to follow it up
Mrs. i. Hoppe was then recalled. After the death
of her husband in 1873 father Hoppe came up TO
the house and was talking to the children; he told
them great many people were after him 70 maze
will, but the law was good enough will for MIN:
who had any business with what he had but them.
the children and their grandmother; il he died to-
morrow they would be worth $4,000 piece and
that would be enough for them to live off Of for
their lifetime if they took care OF it, she was there
and all of her children.
Witness was then asked If she knew old Mr.. Hoppe
very much offended because she objected to his
administering on his sons estate, but the question
was objected TO and ruled out
WitneSs-I administered on my husbands estate.
The Court-don't go into that at all.
Witness-Hoppe came to her house after his son S
death oftener maybe than people were informed; she
could not tell the number of times.
Re-examned-J0sie lone of her children) lived
with him from to years before up to the time of
George Edwin Hoppe recaIled-was at home at
the time referred to by his mother; his grandfather
talking to the children he said the best will
man can make the law makes for him; the law was
the best will man could make if he was 20 die to-
morrow we would De worth $4,000 apiece; take
good care of it and we would never need work any
more; those were not his exact words but the sub
Col Maulsby then moved to strike out the evil
dence of Mrs. Hoppe and the last witness, but the
Court overrued the motion.
The witness was then asked, as one Of the admin
istrators. TO state what the personal estate was
worth. but objection was made II was overruled
and the witness said about Sl20000 they had settled
one account Objection was made TO this and he
was then asked, have you distributed Sll7OB03 OBJ
lection was also made to this but 1t was overruled
and witness was shown certified copy OF their first
account showing $ll7 900 to have been distributed.
Objection made TO the account, but the Court
overruled IT, and the witness identified it as cor
rect to the best of his knowledge there remained in
and about $4,000 20 be distributed the real estate is
not all sold toee eton 70 this overruled The wit
ness then mentioned what he recollected had been
sold and what it amounted to- about 500, with %
acres of woodland not sold.
Crossexamined-the home farm had been sold at
private sale TO his sister after e had been offered at
public SALE he had bought some of the real estate
he and Mr. Roberts were the trustees; there weFetwo
small lots in town also unsold.
The Court then adjourned until Wednesday morn
ing.
HAGEasTowS. June 18th. 1852.
The Court met at clock Judge Alvey having
been compelled To leave the city the trial of the
proceeded with Judges Motter and Pearre on the
bench.
Joseph NJ Farkc-is a lawer by profession aud
lives in Westminster had been employed by Hoppe
in business matters; had conversations with him in
was then made by Judge Smith TO the testimony on
the ground that what passed between attorney and
client was privileged. but the objection amer some
WiTneSs-It was about two months before his
death witness called at Hopes Office and he intro
10 assist him in arranging his business; ascer
tanned he meant TO assist in preparing WILL gave
him some few particulars TO relatives, and some
specific legacies he wished TO make; said he had
some relatives who were needy; he wished to re-
member all and was preparing list Of the differ
children Of his deceased brothers and sisters didn't
say how much he would leave TO each; until he got
I'm, ~ iS ana ss r - he ent
notify the witness and he should prepare the will
he spoke In regard TO blood relations also Of other
legAries. particularly TO the sunday School of
krider's Church OF which he had been superin-
tendent for many years did mention amount then
500. also said something about legacy and wish
lag 20 have a free pew at Grace Lutheran Church Ia
Westminster, but didn't specify the amount spoke
Of the provision he intended 20 make for his wife, it
regard 20 his grandchildren Of leaving some Of his
land in particular way: remembered he made q
remark about them getting all anyhow. but he did
not say 10 which Of them or the mode in which he
was going 10 give IL anyhow: left him, and about
two months afterwards heard he had been taken
suddenly i'll and the Saturday before be died went
% him; he conversed in bed about this matter
went pretty aearly the same thing said again
he hadn't al the names spoke of the legaeies for
his relatives, the sunday school and the church;
didn't remember he spoke Of Others: said he ex
pected 10 be up and about the house in compile of
days. and IN q few days witness was 20 come and
make his will: 3 few days amer that he died
objection made 20 = question whether Hoppe
had said anything about Ars Byers but twas over
ruled.
wiIsess-he did not have mentioned all he
spoke TO me OF
Judge smith then moved 30 strike the testimony
out ON the ground IL was privileged eommunfea-
lions, and referred 20 End Nd Chan. Decisions PIP
30 aud Chew vs. the Farmers Bank. 9Th GIL.
Col Marshal opposed the motion and referred to
Greenleaf on evidence. note 70 page 20.
The motion was oserruled and Mr. Parke was
eross-examined Hoppe had considerable num-
Der Of blood relations witness knew but could not
tell the number Tin reply To questions he named the
suiliYans Yingiings Stonesiiers the Shades child
reE of Frederick Hoppe and David Hoppe, saying
he knew some we're and some he didn't know were)
Mr.. Hoppe hadn't named one OF them 10 the wit
ness
community9 0hiectcdt 10 and Withdrawn
Witness memory was not 30 good, but the words
all anyhow had been Impressed upon his mind.
Hoppe didn't speak Of any particular disposition OF
his property except As 20 The real estate; spoke
settling up his affairs, the legacies and making his
will.
The ease for the caveatoss was here announced as
closed. with the right reserved 70 examine Peter
Woods and Henry Shriver, who were not present. as
10 declarations Of the deceased