Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-03-09

In ~. be V4e te<1e tW<ces - IL INV
tlE1ss: in -. eight gisEss, IL -, Elk
aaass: ia 90. forty oas times; ~ 81.
6ffy -1vs tlsboo-
N. Russell moved N sEfiks ous he
sntiIe testimony Of Mr.. Gleason On
the ground II Sncoapstenfy the
1lsriss TIA mseives being ia court. and
Nr. GleasoA having read from "a sh-
straet made ~ hinae-it. Nr. Gteason
tsstiGed thai biz knowledge had been
obtained entry from The books them
sslves.
His honor denied the request and
the usual sxcsptaon uAs asbed for.
= lGesass - Q~Ash.
Upon the sistsnaent 81 the confeser
anks coun1ei tIlne Ne toG1iRony Ut the
rebuttsl was fInliaae1, ~. uuosoN nnndo
motion 70 withdrew the eptire csse
from the jury, and that he court In-
strucs the jury 70 render . verdict that
the will In question uos the last will
and testament Of James II. RrQun. He
argued this upon the ground that the
viii Was made b. Browne trusted ad-
VISOR Of twenty years, and under great
deliberations; ALEC that the principal
legetee vas neither preseut nor con-
suited ~ the time OF the lnskiug Of the
will. He referred to the otaIements
Brown made 10 subsequent years that
he anticipated come cOntroreysy over
HE will, ana bic emphatic language
about that coptrovoroy. He denied
that there was auy teefinzouy that Mr..
Brown was incompetent to make his
will, or that he Was undu1y Influenced
on the subject ct Of tokoro the will
was made. He dx not think that the
suspicious which Brown ntsrtained ~
20 the psrentage al Alice would not DO
permitted ~ eject the execution OF the
viii. Many cases were cited by Mr..
Russell which in his judgment had .
bearing on the case. He did
not think that tho fact
that IN his last days tie
testator attacked the parity OF HE wife
and child could have auy legal beaDine
in the case, because the win had then
been made many years. Mr.. Russell
ss,d the Jury were not will makers, and
Just because they might think that
Brown ought "a hayc divided his prop
erty equally between his two daughters.
and because they might object 10 his
language about his wife ana daughter,
thailthey should be permitted TO set
aside the Will. In the opinion Of Mr..
Russell, il this will 10 not valid upon
Nr. Rspsom's testimony and Tho teeth
many Of others, the statute Of villa
would better be repealed in Michigan.
Nr. Smiley answered that all the
caaes cited BY Mr.. Russell had been ex-
amined by the contestants council. but
that thsy claimed they did not have
any bearing upon this particular case.
In thus case he claimed that undue in
fiuence had been brought To bear upon
the maker OF the will ~ the p,oponent
-and that not only she influeuced her
father to make the conditions OF the
Mill, apch - thew are. but that she her.
aelf put into bis heart the susplciOns re-
Rarding the purity OF his wife and
daughter.
He did not think the absence of Mar
garet Haines at the time OF the making
Of the will, hid anything 70 do with
the case. II had been shown that such
influence was exerted BY her before the
will Was made--snd the fruits of the
influence seen in the execution.
Mr.. Smiley cited case in which the
| judge granted just such . request Al
Mr.. Russell had made of his honor,
and the supreme court had afterwards
reversed that decision. Mr.. Smiley
thought it could not be expected that
any direct evidence could be given Of
the secrets that Margaret Haines
and her father talked over in the
Ls,lence of her own home at Grandvillc-
I He called attention 70 the fact that
such things. like all fraud, were done
where there would be no witnesses.
+ Judge Adsit announced that tho case