The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1891-05-26

the will was read to her before she
signed it. He met her twice after
that and her mind seemed all right
in fact he bad never thought of her
mind being unsound.
George Kump, an insurance agent,
testified that he had transacted the
insurance and real estate business OF
the deceased for the past ten years
and that he had noticed no difference
in her manner of transacting that
business before and after the injuries
which she had received.
Fred Hey, public administrator of
jackson county, testified that he had
in his possession all of the property OF
deceased which had been turned over
to him by the executor of the will af-
ter this suit had been brought. He
could not testify positively that the
papers he had in his possession were
those of the deceased but he believed
they were.
SECOND DAY.
The Brand will contest case to-day de-
veloped some exceedingly interesting
points both of law and medicine. The
most of the time of the morning
session was taken up in the discus
sion of the point as to whether all of
the witnesses to the will should be
brought into court TO testify as
to the condition Of the
testators mind at the time the
will was made. The court decided
that the production of more than two
witnesses was not necessary to estab-
lish the identity of the will.
The introduction of expert medical
testimony, that of her attendant phys
ician, was to the effect that she was
undoubtedly insane and had been for
several months before she made her
will and several months afterward.
The manner in which the case is
being contested at every point makes
it evident that it will occupy the time
of the court for several days. There
is mass of dispositions bearing on the
subject and large number of wit
neSSes.
PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING.
When the circuit court opened,
Attorney Farr for the contestants ad-
mitted that the will presented in evil
dence was the last will and testament
of the deceased.
Judge Cravens for the defense
cited authorities to show that the de-
tense could now rest its testimony and
asked the court to rule that the plain.
tiffs put in their testimony. The
matter was argued for some time. The
court said it bad been his understand
ing that the practice had been that
the burden of proof had rested on the
defendants. The defendants then
rested their case.
Judge jackson of the council for
plaintiff then cited innumerable au-
thorities On the point that the defend
ants, on whom the burdens of proof
rested, had only introduced the testi-
timony of two of the attesting wit
nesses to the will where there was
three, and that they had not account
ed for the absence death or where
abouts of said third witness Evans.
That although the Missouri statutes
only require two or more witnesses to
will and that two witnesses have been
examined, the failure to introduce the
third witness was not in accordance to
the practice in this state and else
where, which requires that all the
witnesses present at the signing of a
will should give evidence of the man.
ner in which the will was executed.
Attorney Lamm held that the
statues of Missouri requires two wit
nesses only and that the testimony of
two have been produced.
Attorney Farr held that the
statutes required that the minimum
number of witnesses to a legal will
could not be less than two.
The Judge reviewed the case as
presented by the attorneys at length
and overruled the motion, holding,
that the case should proceed without
the evidence.
Judge jackson then fled a motion
that defendants be required to pro-
duce or account for the absent witness
to the will or to produce other evil
dence of the sanity of the testator.
The court Overruled the motion
and instructed the plaintiff to pro-
coed with its case.
John A. Moore, broker and live
stock dealer of Kansas City was the
first witness for the contestants. He