The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-11-24
THE WooDMAN WILL.
Testimony Was Concluded Yesterday
Forenoon and the Arguments Were Be-
gun and Finished.

Harmon. in whose favor the will was
made, continued the testimony which
was interrupted by yesterdays adjourn
ment. He is good-looking young man,
of whom his neighbors speak we'll. He
concluded his narration of the circum-
stances of the making of the will.
Other witnesses introduced on the
same side were Frank bennett, first
selectman of Hollis, Freedom johnson, a
Limerick marble dealer of whom Eliza
beth Woodman bought tombstone for
her brother, Alvin Palmer, a farmer,
Martha Colclough, who had worked six
weeks in the Woodman household,
Horatio Harmon, brother of John W.
Harmon, and Samuel B. Shepard,
manufacturer of Bar Mills.
The consensus of the testimony of
these witnesses was that Elizabeth
Woodman was in her right mind when
she made her will.
On the other side the first witness was
Mrs. Mary Deering of Buxton,
sister of John W. Harmon, but one of
the contestants, and Mrs. Eudoxia
Eaton, another contestant.
The testimony concluded, Hon. S. S.
Brown began the argument for the con-
testants. He said the testimony showed
that Elizabeth Woodman in her old age
was dropsical. In this condition the
blood turned to water; and it would be
natural that a person with blood in that
condition, should be afflicted also with
failing mind. She was having these
dropsical troubles at the very time when
she made the will Mr.. Brown then
went on to describe the alleged influence
of John w. Harmon, criticising his con-
duct very severely.
Hon. Henry B. Cleaves made the clos
ing argument in favor of the will. He
said the law had provided the method OF
executing will. Mrs. Woodman had
the right to bestow her property upon
whomsoever she pleased. Desiring to
make her will and give the large proper
ton of her property to John W. Harmon,
her nephew, who came to her when she
and her brother were sick and when she
needed a friend, she sent for her old
neighbor, Henry K. Bradbury, to draw
her will 1t was made and executed in
his presence and the presence of two
other neighbors, Henry and Albion
Palmer. 1t is claimed by the parties
and counsel opposing the probate of the
will that she was incompetent to make
the same by reason of her enfeebled
condition, and that she was unduly in
huenced. The testimony of the three
subscribing witnesses clearly shows that
she gave full directions as to every pro-
vision. of the will and called their
attention to the fact, when she
executed the same, that she wanted them
to be sure and see her sign her name in
case there should be any trouble after
she died. She also gave directions as to
the keeping of the will. The testimony
of her neighbors who visited her during
the last two years of her life corrobo-
rates the testimony of the witnesses to
the will as to the clearness of her intel
lect. The two physicians who visited
her several times testify most clearly
that the disease of which she was suffer
ing did not create any impairment of her
intellectual capacity. She took lively
interest in everything that was going on
about the farm, Der recollection as to
matters that took place years before was
distinct, and she frequently declared
that she did not know how she could
have got along without John While
it is now claimed by the appellants that
there was gradual impairment of her
mind after the death of her brother, the
weight of testimony shows that she was
as clear as ever. John w. Harmon went
to her house to take care of her and her
brother in January, 1891. He did not go
with the intention then of remaining,
but subsequently consented to upon her
urgent solicitation. The testimony
shows that he never enlseavored to exer-
else any influence upon her in the dispo-
sition of her property, but that it was
voluntary act upon her part and in ac-
cordance with her own judgment and
free will.
Mr.. Cleaves then discussed the law
upon the question of insanity, stating
that our court had frequently held that
the degree of intellectual vigor necessary
to render will valid was the possession
of mental capacity sufficient to transact
business. and with the intelligent under
standing of what one was doing. That
one had right to influence another by
kindness and affection; that such influ-
ence would not defeat will; that in
order to render will invalid, the inf1u-
ence must be of such degree as to take
away the free agency, such an influence
as to render the act no longer that Of a
capable testator.
Mr.. Cleaves discussed at length the
testimony applicable to the case, and
claimed that it was overwhelmingly in
favor of sustaining the will of Elizabeth
Woodman.
JudCe VIRGIN and Tudpe Haskell will