Evening journal., 1890-02-14
TIE FERRY WILL CASE.
THOMAS r. LALLY THE ONLY
WITNESS YET EXAMINED.

Peculiar Developments in an Interesting
Case Persistent Questioning by Lawyer
spruance-rh Two wins OF John rerr,
and Their Provisions.
At yesterday afternoons session Of the
Superior Court the trial of the Ferry
VIII case was begun. The formal action
as stated in the trial list is James Ferry,
and others, against James w. McCloskey,
administrator of Mary Ann Ferry, de-
ceased, and others. The issue was sent
up to the superior Court on the request
Of Register of Wills John H. Bradford,
to decide whether the paperlbearing date
February IL, 1855, purporting to be the
last will and testament of John Ferry
deceased, late of Wilmington. Is, or is
not, his last will and testament.
Ferry left his property to his wife
They had no children and when Ms
Ferry died intestate the property, accord
ing to law, went to her relatives. The
brothers and sisters of John Ferry there
upon contested the viii.
The case was tried before the following
Jury. drawn from special panel David
W. Elkinton, Theodore f. Clark Thomas
Davidson, Columbus Watkins, John 4.
Chairs, John Otto, Jr., William f.
Stnckert, H. Il. Armstrong, William A.
Morrison. James T. Taylor, Samuel Al
richs, John g. Almond
Robert Fran, Esq, William c.
Spruance, Esq, and Attorney General
John Biggs represented the plaintiff or
James Ferry and others. Charles b. Lore,
Esq, and George H. Bates, ESQ, were
counsel for the defendant or administra-
tor of Mary Ann Ferry.
The mode Of procedure was different
from ordinary cases. The defence first
proved the validity Of the win, and in &C
cordance with this mode Mr.. Lore opened
by stating the facts which would be
called to the jury's notice, as follows
On February Is, 1886, John Ferry made
the will which is at issue and which is
claimed to be his last will and testament
On February 49, 1886, Mr.. Ferry died
On March 4 the will was probated
before the register of wills and
letters testamentary issued to Mrs Mary
A. Ferry, John Ferrys widow. Mr.. and
Mrs Ferry were children and he left all
of his property to his wife, who pro-
ceeded to settle and administer on the
estate. April 10. 1889. Mrs. Ferry died,
and leaving no will, the law disposed of
her property and it was distributed among
many purchases by sale, the proceeds
going to Mrs Ferry's legal heirs. On
April 20, 1882 the brothers and sisters
Of John Ferry filed a petition. asking
that the will be reviewed and sci aside in
their favor. which they had right to do
Mr.. Lore explained the law bearing on
the matter and said that the issue had
been sent up TO the Superior Court at
the request Of the register of wills, to
have his judgment submitted to jury
Mr.. Lore then proceeded to prove the
will.
Thomas r. Lally was the first witness
for the defence, or the administrator Of
Mrs. Mary Ann Ferry. he identified his
signature, and that Of John Ferry on the
will, and stated that the signature of
John Ferry was made in his presence and
that Of Patrick Neary. He witnessed it
at Mr.. Ferry's request. Mr. Ferry was
OF sound mind and good memory at the
time, and declared the instrument to be
his last will and testament.
William Q. Spruance, Esq, cross.ex-
amined Mr.. Lally. The witness said that
he wrote the body Of the viii, and de-
tailed the circumstances under which he
was asked to draw it up, and the in
structions which he received from Mr.
Ferry in regard to drawing it up. Wit
ness said that on the day on which he
drew up the will in question, he had held
in his hand prior will drawn up by him
one or two months previous, which con
tanned different provisions. 1t was exc
cuted, and the last time he saw it was
three or four days before Mr.. Ferry's
death. Mr. Spruance tried to find out
what the provisions of the prior will
were, but Mr.. Lore objected, saying that
II was not at issue, and the obiec-
tion was sustained. Mr.. Spruance then
started on another line Of questions which
developed the fact that notes of the first
will had been taken to Mr.. Ferry's sick
bed, when the last will was made. Then
Mr.. Spruance asked what those notes
contained and Mr.. Lore again objected.
Argument on both sides ensued and be-
fore a decision on the point was an
nounced, court adjourned During part
of the cross examination, Mr.. Lally was
speaking of the first will and Mr..
Spruance of the second, which caused
considerable confusion.
The discrimination of Mr.. Lally
was continued at this mornings session
Of court. Mr.. Spruance still PERSISTED in
his efforts to find out something about
the first will Witness said he made
notes at time he was receiving instruc-
tions in regard to the second will on the
first will. He made no notes on that oc-
casion, on paper taken TO Mr.. Ferry's
house for the purpose. Witness testified
that he did yesterday, but said that he
was speaking Of the notes be made Of in
structions for the first will. Witness
said that Mr.. Ferry told him about a
change to be make That he wanted to
leave TALL his property to his
wife Mary. This was change from the
former will.
'Mr. Lally, asked asked Mr.. Spru-
ance at one point, ''are you the Thomas
r. Lally, who the directory states is a
lawyerG'
81 am, replied the witness.
You are not member Of this bar
NO, but am Of the Washington bar.
Then, said Mr.. Spruance, you ought
to know something about the examina-
ton of awitness, and know that you
must answer my questions"
1t next came out that Mr.. Spruance
had given MI. Lore notice on Wednesday
night TO produce the first will Mr.. Lore
said there had not been time to make
search for it, Mr. Spruance wanted to
suspend the cross-examination of Mr.
Lally until the first will was produced or
accounted for. Mr.. Bates thought the
undecided question Of Yesterday as to the