The Cecil Whig., 1883-01-20
PROCEEDINGS OF COURT.
AN INTERESTING WILL CASE &c.

~'S't'''f' iSFi>-''a'ihS thS $asS'sioio Vi
plaintiffs, and Messrs. Jones and Haines
appearing for the Ctveatees or defendants.
This was a suit brought 10 endeavor to set
/ aside the will of the late Captain Firman
Layman of Chesapeake City. 1t appeared
from he evidence that the deceased on the
fourth day of February 1881 he being theu
confined to his room Suffering from disease
of the heart, executed will, by which he
left his property about as follows: To his
daughter Mrs. - Vaughn house and lot
worth abont three to four hundred dollars :
to his son James G. Layman, house and
lot worth about eight hundred dollars to
Matilda Layman. wife of his son Philip
layman, a house and lot worth about one
thousand dollars to his daughter, Mrs.
Pryor widow of VIM. Pryor property real
and personal, worth about five thousand
dollars to his grandson VIM. j. Pryor
son OF Mrs. Wm. Pryor, five hundred dol
lars in cash to his housekeeper Mrs. Eliza
beth Ross Il house and lot, worth about
eiubt hundred dollars during her life, and
also a suite of furniture contained in one
room of his hotel. The reverSion of the last
named house and lot and the residue OF his
estate after all debts, expenses and legaces
were paid he left to his grandson W. j.
PRYOR. in addition to the sum of money be-
fore named TO the children OF his deceased
son Cyrus and his (Cyrns) widow lie left
nothing, she having married again contrary
10 his desire The two sons James and
I Mrs Nauphn
the parties plaintiff in the suit The ground
alleged was undue influence exertcd over
the testator by his honsepeeper Mrs. Ross
and his daughter Mrs. VIM. Pryor. and also
that he was not in a condition of mind to
make iuiicious disposition of his estate,
or in other words that his mind was SO effect
ed hy disease and the medicines admins
tered to him that he was incapable of trans
acting bushes or making a contract or will
4 number OF witnesses We're examined
upon the part of the plaintiffs. The evil
tence of Mr. and Mrs. Vaughn however
being the only testimony elected, which
went to prove the unsounaness of mind OF
the deceased. He testified that he nursed
the deceased during the latter portion OF his
illness that he arrived there Cat the house
of Capt. Layman) very shortly after the
execution of the will that among the ear
lest remarks made to him by the deceased
was a mention of the will made by Linn,
and that he (the deceased) said To him,
"that he had made will, that he was
sorry he had done so, from the bottom OF
his heart, but that he could not help ii, he
was driven to it TO keep peace in the house
Mrs. Vaughn and other witnesses testified
to the peculiar and strange actions OF the
deceased, which led them to think his mind
darang-d. The testimony upon this SIDE
also went TO show that Mrs. Ross, the honse-
keeper welded considerable influence over
deceased they claiming that she and Mrs.
Pryor could do anything they pleased with
him.
The defence opened with the testimony of
Dr. Karsner, physician to the deceased and
one of the witnesses to the will The Doc
tors testimony was that Capt. Layman was
of sonnd mind memory and understanding
and that he was perfectly competent 10
execute proper will. The testimony Of he
physician was supplemented and corrohera-
ted by that of H. H. Brady, John Conery,
the executor named in the will and also
the writer of theinstrument, Samuel ood,
Rev Mr. Hamersley methodist minister.
and others, all of whom W re in the habit
of visiting the deceased during his illness.
The testimony in the case was decidedly
contradictory, and it was left for the jury to
sift the good from the bad. At the close of
the testimony the counsel in the case laid
before the court the prayers which they de
sired to he given the jury as instruction for
the memb mbers thereof to guide them in max
ing up their verdi let. A number were offered
OF which the following were granted by the
court :
On the part OF the plaintiff. " If the jury
believe that Mrs. Ross or any other person
or persons for the purpose of influencing the
Testator in making his will raised prejudice
in the mind of Firman Layman against
those who would otherwise have been the
natural objects ofhis bounty and by contrir-
auce kept him from intercourse with such
persons, to the end that those prejudices or
had thus formed 10 the disadvantage of
such relatives (if the jury so believe) might
not be removed, then the jury are entitled
10 consider these facts in connection with
the other facts in the case, i'll deciding the
third issue"
The third issue as it came from the
Orphans Court was as follows: Was the
said paper writing hearing date the fourth
day of February in the year 1881 and pur-
porting to he the last will and testament Of
Firman Layman procured by the importu-
nifty and undue influence of Eliza Ross or
any other person or persons at time when
he was unable to resist the same and which
deprived the said Frman Layman of his
free agency, so that the said paper writing
was not his free and unconstrained acr."
The prayers upon the part of the defend
ants granted by the court We're as follows
No 1.-The defendant prays the court to
instruct the jury, that if upon the whole
evidence the jury find that Firman Layman
executed the will offered in evidence by the
defendant in the presence of three credi nle
witnesses, who at his request and in his
presence subscribed their names as W Illnesses
tltftr rrU ~ ~ at 1Ht l'n'tO1 ne"SetuIiOn
Thereof he was capable of making valid
deed or contract, and that the same was his
free and voluntary act and was not procured
hy the undue inf1u. nee of any one, they
must find for the defendant.
No THAT the presumption of law is
in favor of the sanity of the teSta' or. and of
his capacity to make a will, and the burden
of proof is on the caveatorS TO establish a
want of testamentary capacity in order 10
Justify the jury in setting aside the will on
that ground.
No. 3-The defendants pray the Court to
instruct the iiurv that the law comedies TO a
person of sound mind the right to dispose of
his property by will in any manner he may
deem proper, consistent with its policy, aud
il is no valid objection to a Will thar it pre-
ferS one child over another, or even gives
the property 10 strangers TO his blood pro-
vide the te>tator was mentally competent
and at the time free from the operation of
undue Influence.
No. That the burden of proof is on the
caveatOr in this case to satisfy the jury
that that the will offered in evidence was
induced by undue influence and that unless
the Jury shall be so satisfied their verdict
must be for the defendants on the third
issue.
No. The defendants pray the Court to
instruct the jury that the influence which
will avoid the will offered in evidence in
this case must he eXerted to such degree as
to amount to force or coercion, destroying
free agency. 1t must not be the influence
of affection or attachment, nor the mere
desire of gratifying the wishes of another
for that would be very strong ground in
q. 4