The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-05-12

Widows Duplicate Tallies Closely with
the Filed Copy of The Document
Contest Will Likely Be on the Ground of In
due Infnence-Jury Censured in the
Criminal COurt-TaX CaSes.

Yesterday the attorneys for Mrs. Joseph
inc +. Mcdonald. having notified the
counsel for the contestants Of the will that
they were ready to produce the much
talked.of duplicate copy for inspection.
both sets of attorneys met at p. NJ. in the
Office of w. p. Fishback.
Mr.. kappes, who has had the custody of
the duplicate, banded the paper to Mr..
Fishback and the latter passed it to Mr..
Winter. who. adjusting his spectacles. sat
down to take good look at'it. U.J.
Hammond produced from his overcoat
pocket q magnifylng glass Is large as
breakfast plate. and Deputy Balls. of the
office of the clerk of Marion county,
handed over the original will which had
been filed with the county clerk.
A. c. Harris and John b. Elam glanced
at the two documents. as did John NJ.
Butler. and. apparently, took little more
interest in the matter. Not SO Messrs.
Cropsey and Winter. who turned the dupli-
cate to the light and examined the water
mark carefully. after which Nh. Winter
read 1t through, comparing it comma. semi
colon and period with the filed copy. Ii
was apparently in every respect identical
with the filed copy. the former being o
carbon duplicate made at the same time OH
the type. writer. At the top of the dnpli,
cate written in Senator McDonald's hand
was written the word duplicate" This
copy, like the paper filed with the clerk,
bore the Senators signature, also written,
and the names of the TWO witnesses. Al
pheus II. Snow and Parke Daniels. also
written. Mr.. Snow was present at the ex-
animation of the papers yesterday. The
will, 1t will be remembered, was executed
Nra McnopaI d,s .ono AL xyara ax,a.d,,1
ly gracious to the gentlemen of the other
side and could not disguise the fact that
they felt very comfortable. They were
even disposed to be facetiOus. and Mr. Fish
nance that was somewhat provoking to his
adverearies. The examination 10 supposed
to have settled the point of q spurious or
forged will. This leaves the plaintiffs the
other point of contest. that the testator
was under undue influence.
In the report Of Judge Browns opinion
on the two motions brou ght before him in
the Mcdonald Will case the basis upon
breyity OF the report. fully brought out.
As 1t is of Importance to the legal fraterni-
ty, that part of the opinion which was cur
tailed yesterday is now given in full:
The question. said the court, lis " neither
our code would be construed the same
as this English judIcature act Not being
able to find anything IN Indiana | have
looked to New York. code State. from
which code ours was mainly taken, Be-
fore they passed the code they had q re-
yised statute which corresponds to the
English judiosture act. and under that act
the Supreme Court has held that in order
to enable party moving. for an examina-
ton of paper 1T must be evidence either
exclusively for the party moving or jointly
for him and the opposite party. In addl-
ton to the Revised Statutes New York
adopted the code. Section 3SS. The Su-
this code. In .Waits's Practice Vol. :,
pages 551-2. is the following: The rules
given in the preceding article in relation
to the cases for which discoy..
cry may be had are in general
yet the court Is not bound by the rules or
practice of chancery as it Is when acting
under the Revised Statutes; and when the
application is made after issue. and for the
purpose of preparing for trial, the court
may order papers to be produced that yes
late solely to the evidence of the party re-
CURED to produce them. which cannot be
done under the Revised Statutes. (Powers
vs.. Elmendorf, 4th Howard Co..
THE provisions of the code were evil
IDENTIFY intended to both enlarge and
simplify the remedy for obtaining an inspec.
ton of books and papers pending the suit.
Section $50, Revised Statutes OF Indiana. is
merely copy of Section 1888 of the New
York code. and it was adopted after the
adoption of the code by the State of New
York, and under the well-known rules
We adopted the construction placed
upon the code by that State. Under the
construction given to this section by the
New York code. there would be no question
but that the plaintiffs would be eptitledOto
an inspection of this paper. buteven under
the rule as laid down in Taylor. on evil
dence referred to by defendants counsel.
think the plaintiffs would be entitled to an
inspection"
Very Complicated Case.
The Udell and Mccoy case. before Judge
Harper, 10 one of tho knottiest cases of its
kind ever tried in the Superior Court Of
this county. Captain Shepherd, for the
McCoys, spoke six hours, and Mr.. Van Vor-
his. for the Udells. spoke two hours on
Tuesday and ell day Wednesday. Cap tain
probably Mr.. Van Vorhis may think of
s0methina else before the Judge takes tho.
case under advisement. Four weeks were
consumed In going over the books ana
hearing the evidence. The case Is too COM
plicated for any one not familiar with legal
matters to understand.
Fined Cent, with S12 Costs
Greene Baldwin, q colored man. who was
charged with stealing gravel from Timothy
Sheehan's property and provoking Mrs.
Sheehan, was fined / cent and costs,
amounting in all to S12.O1. by Squire DAN
iels. yesterday. on the latter charge. When
the Sheehans learned that Baldwin pro-
posed bringing a similar suit against Mrs.
Sheehan they acknowledged to having ag-
gravated him, so the lightest possible fine
was given.
Got $1,000 for SANDER.
Judgment for "a, 600 was rendered at Leb-
anon, yesterday morning. In favor of
Thomas w. Cecil. of this city, against Elias
+. Post, of Irvington, for Islander. 1t came
out in evidence that Post claimed Cecil
owed him 90 cents, and that Post had re-
pestedIy called Cecil O thief for not paw
ing the account. 1t was the third time the
case has been tried each time resulting in
q verdict for the plaintiff.
Dispositions in the Tax Cases.
William II. Dye, attorney for the Big