Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-04-22
HER CLAIM IS VALID
Alice Hayden VIII Receive Her
Snare as Heir.
To ouDssns Co~ss A0ras sAs JsAg-
0~ss Asas.ss ~ WHITE Gsssse
Auss h Legally AAanAaissesed.

No tuIkment OF too ctfco1y cooeS ~
which ths gill NJ James H. lJocksyt
Bsovn 49, bscksa Sas affirmed BY the
supreme court yesterday. Justice Neas
somsry ssoe the opinioa and ths other
justices e',oc9rs~i Ths opsnioa 10 very
iengshy and uphoids the verdict In the
famous esss 1t every PRINT Aftss ~
citing tho preliminary facts u the pro-
hating q the wili and the appeal 10 the
circuit court, the opinion quotes the pro
visions u tho Instrument BY which Mar
gAr-s l. Hzines Gas bequeathed $1,000
Ia trust foe the benefit of her SISTER.
Alice |. Hayden. Of Denver. % he used
Tor Mrs. haydens support In the event
- her husbands death OF inability u
support her. the balance left ~ Mrs.
ttayd-ns death to go % Mira HAines
then Ros-rsL The ~lfe las given. i'm
leu Il dover and statutory allow snc-s.
some small items II personal property.
the gse II the homestead. and further
provision was q teauest III - 90 10 Mar
gsE~t Ia trust for the benefit u the wife
during her lifs. the residue to ~ Ia Mar
gsrrt The remainder 10 tho estate was
beaueathei absolutely to Margaret and
shs x4s nAnsed a. ono VI the executora
rroponent CtaiusA-
IL ~as ,irst cont.nded that there was
10 testimony in the CAR having q legiti-
mate tendency to show that tcstatos vas
mentally unsbuud at the time IL the
execution II the slll In ISL. Or that he
sas a mon0nsniac upon the subject OF
Alse's legitimacy. and IN this connec-
tlon 70 n urged thai the two theories 81
contestant. namely. that the sieceAsed
was Possessed 81 an insane deluslon on
the subject. and that Margaret had ~
poisoned her fathers mind a. TO induce
belief in her false claim a. TAI Alice's
legitimacy are at variance. Ii 10 AIS,
claimed that the court erred in allowing
o." wide a range to co nsestant IN the in
PRODUCTION III testimony as 10 the declar-
sfsons 0f the t-stasor after tho making
81 the will II IL also claimed that sub
-s3aent facts and circumstances intro
duc~i we're incompetent.
The case ~ made out by the con
testant MAS most extraordinary. The
Contestants theory L. that when this
Instrument was made Mr. Brown had
become p-e~ss~d ~ the notion that
Alice vas not his daughter. and that
such belief Vas induced by the propon
ent. Who bad. with the purpo~- 81 in
ducing him Ia dislnherit her sister.
poisoned her fathers mind. by conooct-
iag a story "a the effect that many years
before she. Margaret one day discovered
her mother and one DIR. Hoyt lying GA
the b-d together in = compromising
Position
MArxar~s's Peculiar Influence.
The opinion here gecs into the details
Of the teststors apparent affection Tor
Margaret snd purpose II practically dis
iuh~SIting Alice in the belief that she
was not hIs daughter. having been 81
informed by Margaret.
10 ia contsnd-d that these two posi-
ssous are inconsistent. Ia IL said in
counseT- brief: IL either il true. the
other 10 not. under the special circuu,-
stances here presented. a. neither good
nor evil influence can be exercised over
a crazy nan on the very subject II bic
haliucinatIOn But a person by art
ful false and repeated surmises and in
situations. operating upon a sensi-
tive and sxcitsble mind 81 another. may
f0-t-r sni cxasporste, II not create. an
insane delusion. and at the came time
ant ~ the same means obtain such an
influence over him a. "a induce him Tn
make a will. or do any other act. which
~ would not have done but for the CT
Isfence - the insane delusion. and the
undue influence eoncurriag with u.
In the present ca-e the undue Influence
did not consist alone i'm the statement
a. tnAhce's Illsgitimacy. ~ 10 ciaifnssi
hy CONTESTANT. but other untrufhf1i
statements are claimed tn have BEEN
made rejecting on her. Ia any view it
,.,~r not lie with Margaret - assert that
tho CONTESTANTS theory removed the
question - mental delusion from tho
case Contestant proved that the lie
csa-ssi dbl not become po-~esssed with
IT, belief that Ahce vas not h,s child.
IL - conce.iet that the Theory ~
Ahc-'S iiiegitmacy AMI Mrs Browns In
fidelity - unf1unded IN fact. We have
then a csse here - a father. thirty twO
years after the birth % his child. whom
b. hsS always treated a. hIs o~n snd
with marked Affection. conc.sving all At
once that she NJ hastarsi. IL ~ true
that there 1. no evidence 81 he tesla.
tor. PRIOR declarations Ia this effect.
rat there il the fact that he practically
dianherited her.
Chang ,o Browp's Affections.
The testimony relating a. ,he sahss
auent conditions AMI declarations ~ thu
te-tatr and the continuous dominion
over him Wa admissible Tor the purpo.e
a seasening the presumption Il thu
VALIDITY q the will tc be drssn from its
NON destruction during the period n ten
years W. hnd Mr. Brown suddenly
growing cooi toward his fsvoris~ daugh-
TER - fnd him ros>s-ss-i - the belief
in h~r ili~gitimscy. a belief engsneiered
~ Margaret a. tho only person sho had
-ith-s fhe alleged data or the inauenes
With han Ia induce such belief. whsle
the relations between him and Margaret
remained the sane. While there - no
material change "a circumstances. be
declares the exl=tencs ~ this h~isef N
~, lrtri my fhIs rrf DO rrraixni -