The Portland daily press., 1892-01-20
Nash WILL CONTEST.
Judge Haskell Sustains Judge Of Pro-
bates Decree,
AND THE WILL is TO BE ADMIT
TED TO PROBATE.

The Grounds of the Contest Made by Son
in-Law Kingman-Portland Charities
and Assistant County Attorney True
Still After the Rumsellers in Judge
Bonney's Court.
In the Supreme judicial Court yester-
day, before Judge Haskell, came the
case of Elbridge E. Kingman, guardian
of minor children, appellant, VS.. Lucy L.
Nash. This is an appeal from the decree
of the Judge of probate in approving and
allowing the will of the late Oliver M.
Nash, of Portland. Mr.. Nash died NO
yember 9Th, 1891, leaving an estate val
ued at twenty or twenty-five thousand
dollars. ~
By the terms of the will, Mr.. Nash in
tended to distribute his estate as follows:
To his wife, Lucy F. Nash, Is shares
Merchants National Bank stock, and all
the household furniture; to the Aged
Mems Home in Portland, $3.50, to the
Old Ladies' Home in Portland, $3.50; to
the Female Orphan Asylum, 500; to his
sister, Mary Thorpe, of Raymond, 500,
or to her heirs if she did not survive; to
his son-in-law, E. A. Kingman, all prom
issory notes held against him, the same
to be appraised. All the remainder of
the estate, including the Portland home,
was to go, one-third to Mr.. Nash's wife,
and two-thirls to the children, share and
share alike. The will also specified: Il
make no bequest to my two grand chill
dren now surviving their late mother,
Annie L. Kingman. for the reason that
they take by its terms the benefit of my
life insurance policy in the Mutual Life
Insurance Company of New York, and
have heretofore made numerous advance
payments to their late mother for her
and their benefit, which all are now can
celled.'
Lucy F. Nash was named as executrix.
The mother of the Kngman children
was Mr.. Nash's daughter by former
wife.
The principal reasons for contesting
the will are unsoundness of mind on the
part of the testator, undue influence on
the part of the wife, and that the testator
di anot understand the extent of his es-
tate.
The proponents called ihe three SUBJ
scribing witnesses, Byron D. Verrill (of
counsel for proponents), Geo. W. Verrill,
and S. II. McAlpine. They all testified
that in their opinion the testator was of
sound mind at the time of executing the
will.
Then came the testimony in behalf of
the contestant Mr.. Kingman testified
in regard to the testator's habits Of life.
: He said that Mr.. Nash was drinking
man; that during the last three or four
years he had seen him in Boston quite
often, and that on every such occasion
he (Mr. Nash) was under the influence of
liquor with possibly one or two excep-
tions; that he also drank extensively at
his own house. He testified that Mrs.
Nash had complete control over her hus-
band in everything except his drinking
Jessie NJ. Boardman, agent of the
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York,
testified that Mr.. Nash came to him and
wanted his policy changed and made
payable to his present wife instead of the
children of his former wife; that he told
him it couldn't be changed, and that Mr..
Nash seemed to feel very badly about it,
and thought it was rather hard.
The case was submitted without argu-
ment. Judge Haskell rendered decis-
ion sustaining the decree of the Judge of
Probate, in admitting the will to probate.
Byron D. Verrill for proponents.
Fred Y. Chase for contestant.