The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-01-26
No Break in the Testimony that the Sig
nature to the Will Was Forged.
Defendants Counsel Send Her Ont of the Room
to Avoid Hearing Unpleasant Reflections,
Which. However. They Prevented.


of the Mcdonald will case. at Noblesville,
failure of the attempt to secure for Mrs.
Josephine Mcdonald recognition at the
hands of Indianapol,s's Four Hundred. 1t
was at the afternoon session, and the wit
ness on the stand was j. III. Woodland. Mr..
Woodland had testified upon various phases
of the will contest. The attorneys for the
defense saw what was coming. and. at
word from them. Mrs. Josephine McDon-
aid, the defendant, got up and went into
walting-room.
The question that brought this phase of
the subject to the front. as propounded by
Mr.. Cropsey. was:
do you know the disposition of Senator
Mcdonald toward his family-ast to whether
1t was afiecti0pate or OtherwiseW
"Ho was the most affectionate man." re-
Piled Mr.. Woodland. that ever knew"
What were your relations toward Sena.
tor McDonaldi"
They were of the most intimate charac-
ter. was his confidential friend in all
things"
"Dld your intimacy with him continue
after Senator McDonald's third marriagep
ut did,
"You may state the extent of the control
of Mrs Mcdonald over her husband, CIV
ing facts and Incidents"
Objection was raised to this question.
The objection was sustained and the ques-
tlOn was changed.
estate III you know any facts or incidents
in which you observed the kind OF influence
that Mrs. Mcdonald had over her husband
and her manner of exertlng it,
Here the witness addressed the court, and
asked to be heard. Permission being
granted, Mr.. Woodland stated that most. if
subject was through the medium of com-
municatlons from Senator Mcdonald of q
confidential character. which he would
greatly dislike to be compelled to reveal.
Mr.. Harris interposed with the remark
that the witness could not tell what had
been told him. but what he had seen. The
court so instructed, and the witness pro-
ceeded:
Il never saw them together a half-dozen
times In my life. The Senator's effort to
give her social recognition was the most
important thing L observed. Her influence
over him was absolute"
This was objected to on the ground that
it was not specific and was ordered stricken
out. The witness then proceeded to spec
ify 700.
Mcdonald gave reception to the MEM
bers of the General Assembly, or at least the
were also invited. Many of the invita-
lions were not accepted. A great many
had been issued. The reason l make this
statement Is because Senator Mcdonald
consulted me about 1t"
This evidence was objected to, but the
objection was overruled.
Did he state anything to you relativ to
his third marriagep
Objection raised and sustained. The
plain titfs made several other attempt to
get more of this feature of the case before
the Jury, but every attempt was adroitly
met and parried. and it was finally gwen
up.
The first part of Mr.. Woodlands testimony
signature In the alleged will and duplicate.
TESTIMONY RESUMED.
Being sworn Mr.. Woodland testified that
he had a nominal residence in Indianap-
oils, but really lived in California. where
he was engaged in street railroading. He
had formerly been connected with the
press and bar. He testified that he had
known Senator Mcdonald ever since he
was boy. He knew all the members of
the family.
In answer to the question as to what oc-
caslOn he had to become familiar with the
testatOrs handwriting witness stated that
he had received letters from Senator Me-
Donald and had seen him write The first
letter from him he received In 1861, and the
last in 1880. During the interval between
those two dates he estimated that he had
received from Senator Mcdonald from
three hundred TO five hundred letters.
He was handed the will and asked as to
the genulneness of the signature. Having
scanned it closely he said Il have seon q
the signature of Senator Mcdonald" Hav-
ing examined the duplicate he said: IL
have the same opinion as to this"
UUon crOss-examinatiOn witness said he
4 I, "A nj, ,~S.l
yesterday. The photograph he had seen
about thirty days ago.
when did you leave Indianapolis"
Quericd Mr.. Harris.
Il left Feb. Is, 1885. at noon; went away
WAS 1t SO unusual for you to 60 out of
town in the daytime that you should re-
member it SO distinctIyp
"Oh, saw what was coming and SO fore
stalled you"
'You were formerly "Jayhawker." of the
Enquirer, l believer
"Yes, / conducted the Republican side of
the Enquirer. 1t was necessary for the En-
quirer to have some men who could read
and write, so they employed some Repub-
licans."
The examination in chief being resumed.
Mr.. CrOpsey asked:
What were the relations between the
testator and his family"
Here the defense objected, and the point
w as raised that the plaintiff must stop here
and finally decide upon what theory they
would continue the case.
Mr.. Shirts, speaking for the defense, said
| that for two days the plaintiffs had
| been Offering testimony to show that the
| will was forgery; that. in so doing, the
| plaintiffs had elected to try the case on
| that theory. Having done that 1t was in
| competent TO introduce evidence 10 estab-
| lsh the theory of undue influence. Inc
court Dir. Shirts continued had refused to
| compel the plaintiffs. In advance of the
| trial, to elect upon which theory they
| would proceed. Now they must so elect.
| This evidence which ! was sought to in
| troduce was utterly inconsistent with that
previously adduced, and Its introduction
! was equivalent to saying that the Will
! is genuine and that these ten or twelve
| witnesses. who have been heard have lied.
! Sucn a course was trifling with the court
| 1t was playing fast and loose. 1t was blow
| ing hot and cold. 1t was held that In the
| evidence thus far introduced PLAINTIFF had
! in effect selected nDon which theory they
| would proceed and by this they must abide.
Mr.. Harris was heard briefly In the same
strain, holding that IL the case was based
on two lrreconciabie stories. where if one
were true the other must be false. the
| plaintiffs must elect which they would
adopt. These plaintiffs. IL was held. had
so elected, and that fact barred a resort TO
the other theory.
| Mr. Winter addressed the court. and had
started tn argue the other siue Of the
| proposition when Judge Stevenson inter
! rupted him, saying he had passed upon
/ this phase of the question once. and he
would not change his ruling. IL would be
held that the plaintiffs had the right to
pursue the investigation AS broad n