Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-05

first of the four issues raised was whether
Mrs. Oimsicad was capable, mentally, Of
making will. As to that, he said. it
would suffice if the jury believed that
at tine time she made her wiii MIS-
Olmstead fully understood the meaning and
effect OF the lnstruineut-the full value of the
estate she was dlsposing oil. In connection
with the first issue the jury should consider the
disease Mrs. Olmstead suffered from ana what,
il any, effect its ravdges had upon her mind.
If the jury found that Mrs Olmstead had
mind and recollection enough to fully appre-
ciate what she was doing, then she was capable,
mentally, of making her will.
The second ISSUE explained the court, was,
Did Mrs. Olms.ead fully know the contents OF
her will? Ii the jury found that she was men,
tally incapable, then it followed that she
could not know the contents of her will. But
if they found that she was capable of making
will then it would be necessary to find whether
she did or did not know its contents.
The third issue, said Judge Cole, related to
the alleged fraud and undue influence of the
cayeatee Undue influence was relative term,
and the important matter to be determined what
was the stale of Mrs. Olmstead's mind. For what
might unduly influence one mind might In
.fuence the mind of another and stronger mind
The jury must find that undue influence
was actually exercised, for it would
not do to merely find that oppor-
| tunities existed for exercising fraud or undue
influence. Either of those could be easily
| proven by circumstantiai evidence 1t was
often the most potent. The evidence IN the
| present case all tended to prove or disprove
| In this connection that fraud ana undne
influence was exercised The jury were
| alone to determine what was or was not proven.
From all the evidence the jury should make uT
| their verdict What. above all, was needed wa:
| the truth, and he felt that the jury would have
| little trouble in getting at 1t. l.
! Referring to the will of Hayward NJ. Hutchir'
/ fhotv will wa N
! here. 1t was evidence, however. TO show tht
| extent of the estate in controversy, and under
! its provisions Mrs. Olmstead obtained OIL
| interest in it which she could devise to whom
| soever she pleased
| If Mrs. Olmstead made her will in her hus.
bands favor through affection for him, or at MI
reasonable solicitation, then undue lnnuencs
! was not exercised. IT, however, she was at al
times under his control or domination, then
was made under undue influence.
As to the fourth issue-Was the will mad
through the fraud or misrepresentation OF IN
caveatee or Others acting under him! JUG
Cole said what he had said in relation TO th
third issue applied to the fourth one
The case was a most important one and shouiS
be calmly and deliberately considered: In
property was Mira. Olmsteads to dispos
of as she alone saw MT, an
if the jury believed that she wa
capable Of making will; that che fully knew II
contents: that no fraud or undue influence wa
exercised over her, and that it was not pre-
cured by the fraud misrepresentation @
her husband or any one acting under him. the
it should be sustained. If they found othe'
wise, it was most important and necessary tha
they should say So and that the estate should g
to the dead woman's own blood.
THE JURY RETIREs.
, The Jury were then handed the issues and n
tired to their room at 2:05.