Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-05
GIVEN TO THE JURY.
The Olmstead Will Case Nearing a
Decision.
JUDGE COLES CHI ARG +.
Mr.. Totten's Closing Argument in Behalf
1.-THE Caveator-Dissecting MIR. Olmsteads
Married Life-The Jury Retired Little
After O'clock.

After O'clock.
Mr.. H E. Davis in the Olmstead will case
afternoon closed his argument for
the caveatee, Mr. j ohm F. Olmstead, stating
that he was confident that the jury would put
all else aside and, deciding the case on its mer-
its, sustain the will After The STARS report
closed Yesterday he reviewed the circumstances |
attending the making of Mrs. Olmstead's Will, [
saving that the fact that Mr.. Olmstead sen. for |
DIR. Sewers, the confidential physician OF the |
Hutchinson family, the best evidence that |
he had no sinister intentions. DR.. Sewers was |
willing to tell all he knew. said Mr.. Davis. be-
cause he was favoring the living patient Had
Mr. Olmstead been intent upon forcing his
wife to make will he would have done SO when
she was at daggers points with her family. |
when it would have been an easy matter. 1t
was a late day for q man to be obliged to defend
coniugal affection. wife should prefer her
husband to mother sister or the marriage
would be a mochery. There we're but four wit
nesses for the caveator. Mr.. Davis contended-
Mrs. Hutchinson. Mrs. Ball, both OF them
parties 10 the case; DIR. Sewers and Miss
Hutchinson. Although it was an I'M
pleasant duty, he would charge that Mrs. Ball
had fabricated the whole case. He accused
Mrs. Hutchinson OF preyarication and Miss
Hutchinson of perjury. The dragging OF
family skeleton into court was worse than
robbery of estates. How DR.. Sewers came
there, Mr. Davis intimated. WAS a matter for
inquiry There had been cases in which mem
beers of the medical profession had eaten jail
fare rather than reveal family secrets. He had
told what was not true. Through him also
came the information to Mrs. Ball that Eer
sister had made will. The nurse. whose tes-
timony would have been most important to Mr..
Olmstead. had disappeared, said Mr.. Davis and
he claimed SIZE was last seen in the house OF a
patient of DR.. Sewers at Rockville.
COL. TorTENs CLOSING ARGUMENT.
Upon the opening of the court this morning
Col Enoch Totten began the closing argument
in behalf of the caveator, Mrs. Linda Hutchin-
son Ball. Referring to Mrs. Hutchinson's will,
he said that Mr.. VIM. F. Mattingly. as the
counsel of Mrs. Hutchinson, should have placed
| the will in a sealed package and then placed 1t
! in his safe. When Mr.. Mattingly made copy
| of that WILL he did what he should not have
| done, for he had no right whatever to do such
a thing.
The estate in controversy. said Col. Totten.
| was nearer 100000 than $500 600 and If this
will should be sustained that sum, upon the
| deatR of Mrs Hutchinson and Mr.. Olmstead.
would 90 to the relatives of the latter-people
unknown to Hayward NJ. Hutchinson. Should
such a thing happen and the dead man be able
to hear of it would he not say1t was wrong,
| unnatural and against his dying wishes? Surely
he would for men do not give years OF toll and
danger to provide for the future OF the I'M
known relatives of son-in-law
| Again. referring to the will of Mrs. Hutchin-
son. Col Totten said the production OF the will
in open court during the trial by MI. oimsteao
| was the most extraordinary act he had ever
known Mrs. Hutchinson last saw her Will Ill
her desk at the Sitka. 1t had been shown that
the following March Mr.. Olmstead obtained the
KEYS of that desk and overhauled Its contents
To that will Olmstead had no more right than
the speaker or any member of the jury, and IN
retaining it the caveatee believed that he could
not only secure his wife's half Of the estate, but
also the other half.
THE ONE OBJECT OF THE cAvEArEE.
The will prepared by Gen. Jeffries for Hay
ward NJ Hutchinson, and which Mr.. Hutcnin
son refused to sign because it gave his wifi
/, | practically nothing, was fathered by Mr.. Ohm
stead and prepared by man in his employ.
was a step to gain possession of the Hutchinson
estate but it failed. and then the man endeav
ored to persuade Mrs. Hutchinson to break tn
WILL falsely stating to her that she had nothin:
. ! under her husbands will. That effort was ais
| a failure, and then Mr.. Olmstesd compelled hl
, girl wife to accuse her dearly beloved and low
! ing mother Of falsehood and dishonesty
In this litigation Mr.. Oimstead ha'
: but one purpose, and that was I
cause rupture between his wife and he
mother and sister, and thereby place her unde
! the complete control and dominion of her bus
band, unmo.ested by their intervention. L
other words said Col Totten, her husban
! sought to poison the mind of Mrs. Olmstead b
| leading her to believe that the being who CAV
| her life was endeavoripg to cheat her out
her inheritance. II Mrs. Omstead had no
been under the complete dominion OF her bus
band, why, asked Col. Totem. did she not 6
: to her mother and ask about the matter
4 I l. h,,a hoo fha frrns N n
+ ural thing in the world to do, and that thlni
he said, she would have done had she been
free woman. Referring to the testimony give
during the present trial by Mr.. Olmstead, Co
Totten claimed it was full of general denials.
But general denials would not do against Il
= | evidence submitted on behalf of the caveato
i Neither would his many explanations do.
i In 1880, explained Col. Totten, Mr.. olmstea
WAS childess widower. In little more tha
two years after the death Of
r first wife he married Katie Hutchinso
: then but twenty years OF age: Her husoaI
g was forty-one. Mrs. Katie Hutchinson DIN
Is stead was lovable, gentle girl, without will
lie her own That Mr.. Olmstead loved her. sa
Dr. Col Totten, he did not believe, although
N was undoubtedly proud of her beauty. In Il
g union of two such beings there could
1t no doubt that the, wife soon
ID | came subject to the control al
1t domination Of the husband. The fact that 4
Of caveator had placed the servants on the sta'
a to show the character of Mr.. Oimstead b
l. been sneered at and ridiculed. remarked G.
er Totem. but it was remarkable fact IL
st the other side did not dare to do
in same thing. And not one witness had be
al produced by the other side to show that
tn Olmstead was q kind. companionable ma
xe The little incidents in the married life Of
he and Mrs. Olmstead had also been sneered
x but they were too powerful to be disposed OK
that way.
MRS. oLMsrEAD's ABILITY TO MAKE WILL
r. Referring to the question as to Mrs. Vi
,ss stead 8 ability to make will, the jury were
or minded by COL Totten that testimony b
-, been adduced showing that the disease fr
which she suffered attacked the mind more
- yerely than it did the body. The poor GIRL
~ ! said, never possessed Of knowledge of les
,s terms worn and wasted by disease, tortured
the enlargement between the families,
utterly incapable of approaching all she {
when she signed her will. No sane person wo
Inn believe he claimed, that Mrs Olmstead eitl
an knew its contents or intended to cut OH
, a mother sister and little niece forever. /
me she made will leaving her interest In
CO. father estate to her husband during his
OF this contest would never have been commend
The will had been drawn by MIR. U
. steads paid confidential attorney. and :
was a violation of the principle OF
law that man cannot write him
down the heir. That Mr.. Olmst
WAS present in the room when his wife sig
- the will is the sworn statement OF DR.. Sow
',e and the impression of Mr.. Waters, two OF