Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1893-04-27
COOK WILL CASE.
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL ON
BOTH SIDES.
The Case now I'm the Hands of the
Court for Decision.
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.


The argument in the David Cook
will contest is still on, and as the
caveators have begun their summing
up, the interest in the GAUGE is r
cressing and before the able counse
have finished there may be some sen
sational developments. The battle is
one seemingly to be fought to the fin.
ish. and the decision Of the Court will
be awaited with much interest.
Mr.. Mitchell who opened the case,
spoke from half-psst ten O'Clock in
the morning until half-past three in
the afternoon, excepting during the
noon adjournment
1t is altogether probable that the
argument will take up the entire day,
and may go over until tomorrow.
Mr.. Mitchell, In his opening referred
the Court to the will which he read,
which gave each of the four children
an equal share of the estate of the tes-
tator. He then declared that in many
respects the case was one of the most
remarkable he had ever heard Of.
Bere was litigation that would cost
thousands of dollars of the estate. and
yet If the will was broken the laws of
the state would take this property and
divide it equally among the four chill
dren, exactly as laid down in the will.
What is the object of the litigation?
Is 1t right or wrong, Is it to undo
something that benefited one child
more than another? No. It was all
for nothing. There is no allegation
that there Is another subsisting will, as
this is the only will in existence, all
previous wills having been destroyed.
After briefly referring to some
authorities, Mr.. Mitchell called the at
tention of the testimony of James J..
Reeves, when that gentleman said
that when Mr.. Cook executed his will
he wanted his children to share alike,
and expressed himself that IL all re-
ceived an equal share there would be
no trouble after he was dead.
Mr.. Daniel E. Smith, the other at
testing witness, gave similar testi-
mony. Mr.. Smith testified that Mr..
Cook wanted to make an equal will a
year and two months before he &C.
tually executed the will. There were
two points in the case said Mr.. Mitch
ell. One was undue influence, and the
other mental capacity. Of the in
fiuence, the Courts hold it must be an
influence that testator cannot resist.
The testimony failed utterly to show
any coercion. Mrs. Fannie Sheppard,
herself, said that she told her father
when talking about the making of a
will, that she did not care what he
it the boys, but she urged him to
leave her sister, Mrs. lizard, and her
self equal shares. If there was any
influence used concerning the making
OF the will, it was by the caveators,
for Mrs. lizard herself testified that she
urged her father not to make any new
will. During the day the will was
made, Mr.. Cook attempted to destroy
the old will in stove, but 1t was dis.
covered that oyster shells had covered
the Goals and the will would not burn,
and the old man burned the instru-
ment with matches.
Mr.. Mitchell then took up the ques.
ton of testamentary capacity of Mr..
Cook, and read pages of evidence
showing that Mr.. Cook had business
capacity at the time of his making the
will. He referred to the testimony of
Joseph Atkinson, one of Mr.. Cooks
farm tenants, who had conversation
with Mr.. Cook the day the last will
was made, and Mr.. Cook gave him
minute and business-like directions re-
garding the farm.
The testimony of James J. Reeves
and Daniel E. Smith was gone over in
detail, each gentleman testifying that
Mr.. Cook had testamentary capacity
when the will was drawn. They both
declared that Mr.. Cook knew all that
he was doing and his entire conversa-
ton was intelligent and Ineligible.
Minutely Mr.. Mitchell went over the
testimony of the witnesses for propon.
ents, showing the mental capacity of
Mr.. Cook. Not satlefied he went into
the testimony of the other side, and
skillfully portrayed the evidence of
the caveators themselves, showing
that Mr.. Cook had a perfect knowl-
edge of the members of his family, and
always talked of them in the most kind
and considerate manner.
MIR. Mitchell did not go into the
testimony of the caveators only incl
dentally in his opening, reserving
review OF that In his closing. Finally
Mr.. Mitchell said this case is not i'm
portant In the distribution Of the
property, but 1t is important In sus-