Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-01-23
INSTRUCTIONS ARGUED
IN TIE REILLY WILL CASE YESTERDAY.
AND CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
The Matter Will b Given to the Jury This Nora
ing-Whst Was Said and Done in
the Case Yesterday.


past nine o'clock yesterday morning,
the especial matter before the Court, in
the absence of the jury, being the agree
ment upon instructions, or, In the alb
sence OF an agreement, the arguments
upon the points whereon counsel diff
fered. The jury had been dismissed
Saturday evening until three o'clock
yesterday afternoon, but when that
hour arrived tho arguments had been
so protractod that the Court found
itself unable TO settle the instructions
by the time fixed upon. aud the jury
was informed there would be DELAY
until this morning. The attend.
ance OF spectators at the morning
session was not large, as the arguments
were not OF much general interest, but
at three o'clock the seats in
the court room were fairly well filed.
The instructions for the proponents
were fifteen In number, as originally
prepared, while for the contestants they
numbered sixteen, and tho arguments
pro and con were by Mr.. Hubbard for
the contestants and by Judge Melvin
for the will.
The main points of difference be-
tween the opposing counsel were the
instructions upon the questions OF I'M
due influence and delusion, aud these,
touching upon allegations advanced by
contestants and claimed by them to
have boon proven in the case, were
argued at great length by counsel.
Judge Melvin took the stand, as TO in.
1uence, that IL had neither been alleged
in hn
and set no and insisted upon the claims
that opportunity for influence was
not sufficient allegation I'M
less coupled with positive
proof OF the influence ITSELF aud as to
mental delusion, he held that nothing
| Of material nature had been proven
by the other side. There had, Indeed,
been a showing OF prejudice, or even
hostility, towards the sous, but men tai
alienation had not been shown TO the
extent necessary TO maintain the claims
OF contestants. These points were de-
| bated at length, and then Judge Mel
vim, resuminR his objections to the In
structions offered by the other side,
took exceptions TO the use OF medical
terms, instancing "monomania," and
saying Courts would not and
should not allow or use instruc-
tions to jury gathered from
outside the domain OF law, however
eminent the author OF such ideas might
be. He also objected to certain instruc-
lions as being vague and indefinite and
left too much TO the Imagination. And
la making his argument, both upon this
point and In reference TO others, Judge
Melvin, while admitting that the pro
ponents must prove general testimen-
taTy capacity, said that any special or
particular claim Of mental arrangement
set up by the contestants must be
proven by them. The burden OF proof 10
such special allegations, was not
upon proponents, but upon the other
side. Ia like manner Judge Melvin
went through the Instructions submit
ted by the other side, Directing at
length and seriously TO numbe Of
them. In instruction Nos. , and g. as
proposed by contestants, reference had
been made to the execution OF the will
according 70 the requirements OF the
statute" and he seriously objected TO
that as being vague and leaving too
much TO the jury for Inference. Judge
Melvin continued his criticism until
about twenty minutes OF one, and then
gave way 20 Mr.. Hubbard, who first adj
dressed himself 10 the dispute as TO I'M
due Influence. and then passed on TO a
review OF al the other points at issue
between opposing counsel, going over
the Instructions scridftu T. pom the
point as 10 the burden Of proof as 20 de-
lusiOns there was a lively Interchange
o. conflicting views, with Schouler on
wis, sec. 40, aud n citation from o
Maine case az tho authorities. and in
the course OF his remarks Mr.. Hubbard
took strong ground. ia opposition %
Judge Melvin, that there was no Issue
ln the case save and alone the broad
and general question: is this the true
Will 81 Michael Renly2 lie pointed
out that the will was 30
the Circuit Court Just a. though 10 had
been originally offered there for pro-
bate, and that there was 10 pleading
and no issue Of whatever sort, save The
ono be bad above presented. 10 Mich
aeI Reilly was Insane, 30 vas not hi-
will; if he had been unduIy Influenced.
10 was not his will; 10 he was under ,ho
ace Of twenty-one, 10 was not biz Will:
u there wa any ground for disquaiaca-
ton whatever. ~ was not his Will, aud
that alone was the point 40 issue in the
cause.
At tbe conclusion Of the argument, az
1915 O'Clock the Court said 10 would not
require counsel % be- present at 3 O'Clock,
as had been originally Intended. owing
10 the impOssibility Of reaching con.
clusion upon ell the matters Of differ
ence in the limited time remaining be.
fore that hour, bot he would notify
counsel when ~ bad reached n deter
mination, which would be at some hour
later ln the afternoon.
The Court then took the two sets OF
Instructions and at O'Clock Court al
iourned until s0ch time as Jndge Camp
bell should indicate.
Az 3 o'clock the Jury returned and
we're in their seats, but Judge Campbell
was still in his room wrestling with the
authorities and celebrating upon the
various points Of difference and the Jury
was adjourned untl 0:3O this morning.
a III attempts TO make terms with the
Bridge Companies having failed, Chair
man II. i. MCGreROr TO-DAY advortises
-. !. -. E..L u IL H...-.-- -