Daily globe., 1883-05-27

ploy at the time of the execution of the
will and the testator speaks of him in the
will as my friend Charles Flynn who took
| care of me during my recent sickness"
The gift to Flynn is a small one, and con-
sidering the circumstances of the testator
and the value of his estate it is not, of it.
self fact tendin to show that Flynn had
used undue influence to procure it. There
is no evidence of solicitation by Flynn and
DR.. Mintzer himself states reason for
making the gift.
At the hearing it was urged by the con-
| testant that the fact that the testator and
his wife were both ardent temperance re-
formers, and that testator knew of his
! wifs's desire to promote the
cause of temperance, induced
him to make the former will,
and that that will expressed the purpose
of his life; that his revo cation of that will
and the execution of the will of March 8,
| tended to show that he labored under III
| sane delus1ons respecting her.
| Contestant introduced testimony to the
effect that the relations between DR.. Mint
zer and herself had been of the most
friendly and harmonious during the whole
period of their married life, down to the
tested unreasonable suspicion of her. On
| the other hand, it was shown that in their
business transactions with each other,
which were not infrequent, they were as
close and exacting as in their dealings
with strangers. Mrs. Mintzer testified that
| while her husband was at the hospital she
| asked him to lend her some money to pay
her bills, and that he said he would let her
J hoUQ &Ol0 if ho rvix 4 ba-
issory note for that amount, and that she
secured the loan on those terms, her hus-
band depositing the note in bank. 1t was
also shown that DR.. Mintzer bought real
estate from his wife within the year previ-
GUS to his death, paying part cash, and
the balance by post dated check, which
| check Mrs. Mintzer would not receive I'M
til it had been endorsed by the president of
| the bank.
The testimony clearly shows the exis-
| tence in the minds of testator and his wife
of mutual suspicion and distrust in bust
ness matters.
The testator habitualiy spoke with pride
of his ancestors, and their descendants.
the Mintzer family OF Pennsylvania. All
of the benefciaries under the will of March
3, 1883, are relatives of the testator, except
! AAAAo' hiS dtC duQ S1dL1SS 1u1S Will
as it reads, contains nothing which would
indicate that it was the offspring of insane
delusion or hallucination.
The testator while debating its provis-
ions to Henry L. Williams, Esq, the attor-
ney who prepared it, directed that his wife
should receive of his estate "what
the law of the state of Minnesota allowed
her." explaining that she was possessed of
an ample fortune in her own right. Some
of his Pennsylvania relatives are
not named in the will, and
it was shown that the tes-
tator had omitted them for reasons that
to him were sufficient.
The contestant has failed to establish
any of the grounds specified in the notice
| of contest, and the orders of this court to
be entered this day will be that the will of
| March 3, 1883, be allowed and admitted to
probate as the last will and testament of
VIM. L. Mintzer, deceased, and also that
The petition of Anna R. Mintzer, fled in
this court April 2, 1888, that the will of
November, 1873, be admitted to probate
| be denied. VIM. B. M'GRoRTY,
| Judge of Probate.
I