The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-01-25
These Support the Position of the Plaintiffs, of
Forgery or Undue Infuencs-Mr. Harris
Answers Dir. CrOpsey's Statements.
The Handsome Widow Appearsin Court
in Unrelieved Black-Her Dignity.
Colonel Ray an Interesting Witness. with
knowledge of How Forgery Is Made Easy
Adjourned with Legal Point Pending.

| ed the bulk of those in attendance, but yes
terday was different The people of
Noblesvi,le appeared to have learned
that there was something in the
case worthy OF their attention. and at the
afternoon session the courtroom was
fairly we'll filled. most of those in attend
anoe being ladies. A feature that gave the
case added interest was the presence of
Mrs. Josephine Mcdonald, the defendant.
Mrs. McDonald's presence will not preju-
dice her case IN the minds of the jury. She
was clad in mourning. without q bit
of color to relieve the sombre effect. She
has fine presence, and her demeanor was
that OF quiet dignity and perfect self
possession, with no trace Of uneasiness or
anxiety. But for her proximity TO her at
torneys mono would have guessed that she
was the central figure In the contest and
had more at stake in the trial than any
one else.
Another figure that attracted scarce
less attention was Miss Jessie Mcdonald,
one OF the contestants, who occupied
a seat adjacent to the table OF the attor-
neys on the other side of the room. Miss
Jessie sat next to her uncle. Malcolm Mo-
Donald, with whom she frequently con-
versed. and every phase of the case was
watched by her with undisguised interest
and attention.
The statement for the defense, yesterday
morning was made by Addison c. Harris,
being the first thing in order after court
had been called. Referring to the state
ment of Mr.. Cropsey for the plaintiffs, Mr..
Harris said one story was good until an
other had been told, and so evidence on one
eide of n case would have weight until the
opposing witnesses had been heard. The
burden OF proof. Mr.. Harris said, would
rest upon the plaintiffs and they must es-
prAnOndaranGa
that the will was forged or secured through
undue influence. else their case falls
| TO the ground. The statute provided, and
the rule had held among English speaking
an infant or of unsound mind. had the ight
| TO dispose of property to whom and In what
manner he might please. The only iimita-
| ton was that the widow, If there was
widow, could not be deprived of the Dor
tion that the law allotted her. The right
to dispose OF property being absolute, it
was not for the jury to say whether Senator
Mcdonald made the will as the jury thought
| he should, but did he make the will. But
they say he did not make the will.
| Mrs. Mcdonald influenced him so CON-
pletely that it was not his will. Yetin the
same breath, they described him as
man man Of q s Esnown n''e'' iawyes s'S'e Of
national reputation and known for his
strength of character and force of will.
| There are those. said Mr. Harris, who
lawsuit, but the law in this State requires
| litigant to take some ground and hold 1t.
| He could not take one ground and then
| another, utterly inconsistent. In this case,
was procured through undue IN
| influence, they thereby say that
| Mr.. Mcdonald signed the will; that Snow
and Daniels witnessed it, and that the
testatOr wac moved to make 1t through an
influence that he was not able TO cast
| aside. At the same time these plaintiffs
| charged that the will was q forgery. Mr..
Harris had once heard story which he
| thought very funny. and which illustrated
kettle. First he said that he didn't steal
| it; second, he got 1t, but it was cracked
| and broken; third, he got it cracked
and broken. but returned 1t whole.
First. Senator Mcdonald made will I'M
der undue influence; second. he didn't
make it; 1t is a forgery. Adverting to the
charge of forgery. Mr.. Harris said it was
an extraordinary thing that the will. hav-
ing been probated twenty months ago, and
nothing in the statement of Mr.. Cropsey
indicating who had committed the crime.
They had q notion, but wouldn't tell. As
IT was, the defendants were tight light;
the term lighting advisedly. for
when thus charged Mrs. Mcdonald had
nothing TO do but fight for her own rsputa-
tion and her husbands honor. Answering
Cropsey for believing the will forgery,
Mr. Harris said the fact that the will was
typewriter amounted to nothing. There
was stenographer and typewriter in Soma
called for in Senator MoDonold's Of
fee in recent years 1t would have
been produced In typewriting. and he
would challenge Mr. Butler to deny that
the firms most important papers OF recent
years. involving thousands and millions OF
dollars were in tvpeWritlng.
Referring to the mistake in the initials
of one of the heirs Mr.. Harris said forger
would have been very careful to get every
name correct but in transcribing dictation
1t was not strange that such mis-
press copy should be taken was
not strange. 1t was customary
letter-press copies of all documents. and
why not of o wilIf The question rather
presented itself. what would a forger want
with letter-pr press copy OF will.
MIR. Butler will tell you, continued Mr.
Harris, that exactly the kind Of paper this
will is written on was in the Mcdonald "
Butler office; that it Is exactly the same
size; that the writing is by Caligraph, and
snow s ' and PARK Daniels viii tell you
that will was executed which they
witnessed Aug. IS, 1890. To forge and place
the will where IL was found. the fOrger
must have had key to the inside door. the
vate draw er, typewriter, the same sized
paper, time to 90 out of the city. write the
WILL forge the signature and return it to
the drawer where it was found. Mr..
Harris charged that Mr.. Cropsey. in giving
the statement of Mr.. Butler when he
said: THAT is not the will as he told
il to me" did not give all that Mr.. Butler
said. for in finishing the sentence, he Mr..
Butler) said. But this is so much the bet
ter for Mrs. Mcdonald" The Will had
been probated. There was no suspicion of
fraud then. The will was probated, June
%. 1891 Snow making affidavit that it had
been signed in his presence and thus it
stood until Feb. q. 1892.
Mr.. Harris repeated that the plaintiffs
must proceed upon consistent theory,
but did theyi
First the commences of the signature
was admitted, but 1t was charged that q
sheet had been inserted, this position being
abandoned for the other that the entire
will was o forgery. Mr.. Harris said that
Judge Roache. the lifelong friend of the
testa.or would testify that the signature
was genuine; that A. l.. Mason, who was
in the Senator's Office ten years. would tes-
tify that the signature was genuine, and
that their testimony would De supported by
that of many others. Mr.. Harris urged the
jury to keep their minds clear until they
bad heard all the testimony, the argument
and the charge of the court and he had no
fears OF the result.
THE TESTIMONY BEGUN.
The first witness was Walter b. Miller. Of
Warren county, who had known Senator
Mcdonald since 1912. He knew him when