Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-06
MRS. OLMSTEAD'S WILL.
Jury Decides Against Its Validity-A
Motion for a New Trial.

A Jury Decides Agains. It's valiiity-A
Motion for a New Trial.
After celebrating one hour and twenty-five
minutes the jury in the O!mstead will case re-
turned verdict yesterday afternoon finding
for the caveator. Mrs Linda Hutchinson
Ball. on all Of the four issues raised,
declaring that Mrs. Katie Hutchinson
Olmstead was incapable, mentally. OF making a
will; that she did not know its contents; that it
was obtained through the fraud and undue in
fuence OF her husband. John F. Olmstead, and
that it was obtained through fraud and mis-
representations.
As stated in Yesterdays STAR. the jury retired
at 205 While it generally expected that
the will would not be sustained. it was
as generally believed that the jury would
be much longer in arriving at their verdict.
Therefore very few of the many persons who
had daily attended the long trial were present
when the verdict was rendered. While the ver-
dict was matter of some surprise to the cavea-
tees counsel. Mr.. II. Z. Davis, Col Totten
and Mr.. John s. Webb. counsel for Mrs. Ball.
felt confident that the will would not be sGs-
tanned. The caveatee. Mr.. John F. Olmstead,
received the verdict smilingly. At the request
of MIR. Davis the jury was polled, but every
member stated the verdict to be announced
by the foreman.
A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Thereupon Mr.. Davis gave formal notice Of a
motion for a new trial This motion will be
argued at the earliest practicable day, and
if it is denied. as it is generally ad-
will be taken to the Court of Appeals.
From that court, should the judgment
Of the lower court be affirmed, 1t is
understood that an appeal will be
taken to the United States Supreme Court.
The case. therefore. will in all probability be
before the courts for several years before a
final decision Is reached.
The tour issues and the verdict upon them
were follows:
l. Was Katie Hutchinson Olmstead of sound
and disposing mind at the making of will?
Verdict. no.
q Were the contents of said will known to
her? Verdict, no.
8. Was the will executed under the undue
influence of the suggestion, opportunities. &C.,
yes.
4. Was said paper writing procured by the
fraud or misrepresentation of the said John F.
Olmstead or any other person or persons acting
of their own volition under the direction Of
the said John +. Olmstead? Verdict. yes.
EFFECT OF THE VERDICT IF SUSTAINED.
Any one of the answers given by the jury
would have broken the will, and the verdict is
therefore most sweeping victory for
the caveator, Mrs. Ball. Should the
verdict be finally sustained Mrs.
Ball. upon the death Of her mother. Mrs
Hayward NJ. Hutchinson, will fall heir to the
entire estate of her father an
estate now generally supposed to be
valued at not less than Sl,000.000. This
estate. under the provisions of the will of her
husband. Mrs. Hutchinson ENJOYS during her
life, with remainder to their children.
1t one-half OF this remainder.
Mrs. Ball and Mrs. Olmstead being
the two surviving children of Hayward NJ.
Hutchinson, which the alleged will Of Mrs.
John F. Olmstead sought TO convey to her hus-
band. and which now, in the event of the
verdict rendered yesterday being
finally sustained, will go to Mrs
Ball Mrs. Ball has one child, little daugh-
ter. to whom In the event OF the death of
mother and grandmother, the entire estate
will go.