The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-01-24

hsy Ium. out made no reference TO the IN
canny story of the dream of the governess
In the Mcdonald family. which connected
Hutchins with the forgery of the will
Continuing. Mr.. Cropsy said that Senator
Mcdonald was constantly forgetting the
combination, and he wrote IT on
aed scrap Of paper which WIN hG s ssi.
scrap he carried the key to bis private
drawer in the safe. He also carried
key to the office. this making 1t easy for
any one in the Senator's confidence to have
access to his private drawer. The key
that the Senator carried. and which bore
the initials of the manufacturers. had been
lost but it WAS since.developed that an
other key had been made. and part of the
plan of tie plaintiffs would be TO show
what figure this second key played in the
will forgery.
Mr.. Cropsey recited that some months be-
fore his death. desiring TO throw off all
business burdens. Senator Mcdonald sent
for his lifelong friend and partner. John
NJ. Butler. and told him of his will and
what disposition he had made of his prop
erty. Having told him the Senator asked
Mr. Butler to repeat 1t. which he
did. and the latter was assured that he
understood II perfectly. The will was
died on the 2lst. and had been buried on
the 18th. Alpheus Snow started to read
the will and was interrupted by John NJ.
Butler who said. Let me read. can hear
u, II.
Butler exclaimed:
This is not the will as he told it TO me-"
Dlligent search was made. but no other
will was found. Another suspicious cir
cumstance was the fact that the book con-
tanning Hutchinss stenographio notes
the others were there. The account
of the contents of the will as
given by Mcdonald TO Butler. as deposed
by the latter, was that Mrs. Mcdonald was
\ 81 "A - n
life estate in the Washington-street prop
erty. the fee simple of which was
Vested In Malcolm S. and jessie
and Joseph. +. Mcdonald. the, form
eI receiving one half and the
last two one-quarter each. This method of
disposine of his property was subsequently
told TO the testatOr's brother James and
his son Malcolm.
Mr.. Cropsey described the attitude of
the widow, toward the grandchildren
stated that she had declared that
she hated their mother living. and hated
her memory and often threatened that the
children. Jessie and Joseph. should never
inherit any of their grandfather's prop.
erty. As further illustrating the spirit of
Mrs. Mcdonald toward the heirs.
it was stated that month previous
to the Senator's death he and his wife he
ing out riding, their horses ran away. but
were finally stopped without injury; that
lated the report that Malcolm Mcdonald,
the housekeeper and the hostler had con-
spired in the hitching up of the team to
kill her.
1t was represented by Mr.. Cropsey that
Senator Mcdonald was q most generous
man; that most any relative or friend could
secure his Endorsement to paper. and he
thus ran the risk frequently of being i'm
poverished. While the contestants In this
suit never asked or received his assistance
4 T.
runities and influence of Mrs. Mcdonald
that from the time of their marriage In 1881,
she then having no estate. influenced him
to deed 10 her joint interest In his prop
erty at Washington. ID. c., the office proper
ty on Pennsylvania street, and the residence
property amounting to $50. 900 and producing
an incomeof $4,000 year. This property
was not IN litigation. 1t belonged to Mrs.
Mcdonald. but the PLAINTIFF would assert
property, to which they believed
themselves entitled. not. only be.
cause of the Senator's repeated
declarations. but from the fact that 1t was
bought with the proceeds of the sale OF
property owned by Senator McDonald's
first wife.
Mr.. Cropsey described Mrs. Josephine
Mcdonald as brilliant and beautiful
woman, influential in the circle
ried the Senator when be was old
and she forty-six. Her influence over Sen
ator Mcdonald was most potent. and had
In q measure decreased his manifestations
of affection for the heirs at law. Even
though the will should be shown to
be genuIne. it was held 1t shOnld be
Get aside on the ground of undue influence,
but Mr.. CrOpsey was confident the plant
IFS would make such showing that the
jury would be convinced that the will Is
fraud and forgery. and that on that
ground 1t should be set aside.
At the conclusion of his statement there
was q lively passage between she attorneys
over possession of the papers. The at
tOrneys for the defence claim tho 'dupli.
cate" copy of the will AS their personal
property. Whom Mr. Cropsey had finished,
CrODsey had used with the original in his
statement The latter eaid he would turn
both over to the court and made a move as
If to do 1t.
Mr. Fishback sprang to the front and
took the paper from Cropseys hand.
Il gave you that az q gentleman" said
Mr.. Fishback.
"Why don't you take it back as gentle
manW retOrted Crnpsey.
You didn't offer it in that way."
Your sge will excuse yOu, | suppose"
said Cropsey TO Fishback. his anger evil
IDENTIFY rising.
III assure you i ask no consideration on
that account" retorted Fishback.
Attorneys for the plaintiff then appealed
to the court. saying they wished to COM
pare the original and duplicate without
others being present. TO W hich Mr.. Harris,
rather unwillingly. finally consented.
ment to the jury this morning, and the
taking of testimony will probably COM
mence this forenoon. The case will prob.
ably last all week