The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1890-11-26
The WelIs WIFI Case.

A somewhat Interesting case came on to
be heard in the court house last Thursday
before the judge of probate. It was the
contesting of the will of the late John W..
Wells, whose property had been partially
devised to two colored boys, children of
the testator.
J. F. Rhamc, Esq, Gen. E. w. Noise,
and Maj Marion Noise represented the de-
visees under the will, and r. o. Purdy,
Esq, and NJ. G. Galluchat, Esq, represent
ed the contestants The court room WAS
we'll filled with witnesses and spectators,
and considerable interest was exhibited.
The first subscribing witness to the Will
swore that he WAS present and saw Mr..
Wells sign the WILL but he could not re-
member positively whether the two other
witnesses Were present OF not.
The second witness testified that he sub
scIlbed his name as witness to the will,
that the signature attached to the will pur-
porting to be his was his, and that he re-
membercd distinctly having witnessed the
paper, but fifteen years having elapsed he
could not remember who was present at
the time, and he did not recollcct positively
whether Mr. Wells was present. He
identified the signature as being the
signature of John W. Wells. and said
that he would not have signed his
na.le as witness unless he had seen Mir.
Wells sign the paper yet the ratter had es-
capped his memory. He further said that
he could not remember whether the other
two witnesses were present, but that he
knew that it was proper for the will to ke
signed in the presence Of the teStator and
Of each other to make 1t valid.
The.third witness testified that he was in
vited to Mr.. Wells's house for the purpose
of witnessing q paper, that lie saw Mr.
Wells sign the will IN his bed room, ana
that he was positive that one of the witness
es was present together with the executor,
but as to the other witness he could not re-
member but would not pretend to say that
he was not present. He never did sign his
name as witness to a paper unless he actu-
ally saw the principal sign his name, or
have the principal to request him to witness
after first acknowledging his signature.
These three witnesses were Mr.. G. +.
Fielder, Mr.. S. j. BowmaL, and Mr.. L.
Motto Ragin Three more honorable men
could not be found in the county, but after
a lapse of fifteen years it is not surprising
that matter of 40 interest to them should
escape their memory At this stage of the
proceedings the counsel for the will rested
their case Counsel for the contestants
then made q motion to dismiss the proceed
ings upon the ground that the propounders
of the will failed to prove the will in solemn
form rs required by the general status of
South Carolina; that IS to say: that they
failed to prove that the will was signed by
the testator in the presence Of the witnesses
and in the presence Of each other.
Then regular legal battle ensned. Able
arguments were made on both sides oe the
Issue and the arguments were not concluded
until after dirk. I
At the conclusion of the arguments, the
court ann nounced that the matters to be con-
sidered were of q very important nature,
and that he did not feel like taking upon
himself the responsibility Of rendering q
decision upon the points involved without
first considering the matter thoroughly.
He therefore announced that he would ad.
iourn the court until the next morning at
$ o'clock when he would be prepared. de-
eide the motion, unless counsel could az
range to agree among themselves on more
suitable day.
The lawyers after considerable time spent
in consultation requested the court to APP
point Tuesday, the 25th inst, which oay
was appointed to announce the conclusions
of the court.
Cn tAe morning of the 25lh inst. letters
were received from some OF the counsel
tlat they would not be at the tiial, and Il
the case WIS decided against their clients
they would appeal as the case stood.
At eleven O'Clock the court WAS called and
Joseph +. Rhamc, Esq, and NJ. &. Gallu-
chat, Esq, were present to represent their
respective interests. The court announced
the following decision upon the motion
made by counsel for the contestants,
ORDER.
THE STATE OF South CARoL1NA-CLAEEN-
DON CoUSTY-1S THE PROBATE CoUET.-ln
the matter Of the last will and testament of
john w. Wells, deceased, fx parte John D.
Brock. Edwin Wells, and Nathan Wells.
At the close OF the examination OF the
witnesses sworn and examined in support
of the paper purportins to be the last will
and testament of John W. Wells, deceased,
now being propounded i'll this court, coun-
sci for petitioners having rested their case;
the counsel for the contestants moved this
court:
To dismiss the petition in the proceed
ingS, and to adjuage that the paper sought
to be propounded is the last will and testa-
ment of John W. Wells deceased, is not his
last will and testament.
Having carefully read and scrutiniZed the
said paper, and having carefully considered
the testimony of said witnesses in connec-
ton with said document, l am lead to the
conclusion that the proponents have, IN
support of said alleged will made q prinu
tacie case, and l canuot under my concep-
ton of my duty sustain said motion, and,
therefore, the same is refused.
LOUIS APPELT,
Judge of Probate c. c.
November 22ad, 1880,
There being no testimony offered by the
contestants against the will the following
decree WAS Issued by the court:
DECREE
Pursuant to adjournment On the twentieth
day of November this court re-convcncd at
the court house ut eleven o'clock a. NJ, this
day, and the foregoing case was opened:
Mr.. Galluchat counsel for some of the
contestants and Mr. Rhame representing
Edwin Wells one of the proponents of the
alleged will of John ". Wells, were present.
After reading and filing my order over
ruling the motion made on the goth instant
to dismiss the proceedings herein and re-
fuse probate of the alleged will, Iannounced
that the court was ready to hear testimony
in behalf Of the said contestants against the
admission of said instrument to probate,
for which I allowed ample time; but no
testimony having been offered to rebut OF
overcome the testimony heretofore submit
ted by the proponents Of the said docu-
ment as the last vii! of John W. Wells,
find as matter of fact: That the paper
propounded by the petitioners herein rs the
last will and testament of joan W. Wells.
Lii. Il &,