The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-18

| 1892 defined this term and 1t Is marked
| by the breaking down OF mental power
in advance OF bodily decay.
AS to reliable evidence, DIT. Riley sa lo
the testimony OF attest1ng witnesses
should be the controlling consideration,
which he supported by the case OF Kerr
vs. IIuneford. That will was q just and
a right will. and that rule was laid
| down where the witnesses themselves
were not inbeciIe, and observed what
they ought to have observed r ar
otherwise it is here. The weight OF the
evidence is before you, and II you hnd
the attesting witnesses did notrememoer
as they ought, their testimony goes down
below the testimony OF reputable neIgh-
bors Direct or circunstantlale evidence
can rebuff such evidence. The attorney
general, said Dir. Hubbard, failed 10 TO
mention case four years later than the
Lunsford case. Hyatt vs.. Shull. IS the
case, and the court says the evidence OF
his neigh bors who have known the
testator long and well is ordinarily the
reliable evidence. Whether Brother
Rilev knew that was the law or not. 1t
is the law he practices. These neigh
bors knew the man about whom they
testified.
He commented on the fact that Mr.
Riley said the witnesses for the con.
testants testified on frivolous trltHes"
|hile the witnesses for the other side
testified to .business transaction" Mr..
Riley iauded NIessrs. List and Lamb,
but drew the veil of his most eloquent
silence over evidence OF Fritz Lulkert
who tried to testify to something. Re
ferring to the hundreds. as stated by
Mr.. Riley, on the streets who knew
nothing OF the mental incopacity OF MIR,
Reilly, why did they not appear IN
court? Father Sullivan could have got
them. Out of their fifty witnesses how
many did they put on the stand? Only
twenty-five did they dare to put on the
stand. And they do say IL took all the
bishops influence to prevent Father
Sullivan from preaching sermon on,
"Hundreds are called; but few are
chosen IGreat laughter,l Our witt
nesses, said Mr.. Hubbard, are NOT out
on the street; they were here and testi-
fed on ..frivilous trifiles" as MIR. Riley
gays, or rs say "business transactions.
After the fifty got through their fcstI-
ynony WAS absolutely uuehaken. Those
TWEEN ty-fye for the other side; some toll
by helwayside almost at the start
Mayor Caldwell and Mr.. Simpson could
not
MAKE UP THEIR MINDS
as to mental capacity. Mr.. Lutz said
Mr.. Reilly was Every pleasant to get
along with"-he paid the bills presented
to him without Investigation. He com.
meuted on the looseness OF the contract
Mr.. Lutz had with Mr.. Reilly. This
leaves nineteen witnesses yet to speak
about. From this list DR.. Baird must
be taken, because he said he did not
pretend an acquaint lance SO as to give
an opinion on his mental capacity. OF
tho nineteen, five of them admitted
'that in some respects Michael Reilly
was irrational" These five witnesses
were Colonel O'Brien, who testified OF
Mr.. Reilly's incapacity; Mr.. Rinehart
told of three transactions; Judge Rog-
ers told that Mr.. Reilly was utterly I'M
reasonable in regard to his own
children; NJ. J. O'Neill tells you
tho Same thing, even though in the
employ of the proponents, he said ut
was SIMPLY horrible;" Mrs Roth had
not expected to tell some of those
things" and she was ono OF "two
helpless women" VINO travelled with Mr.
Reilly. Yet the 1.-TWO helpless women"
had to go to the ticket office with the
him to 20 alone. So thnto five wit.
ncases taken away leave rurteen who
form another class w:,om Peter
Erb fifty typities who said AR. Reilly
was very cute" This cuteness laid in
the fact that he depended on Pete"
There is AIR. Dillon, whose testimony
was skillfully reviewed by the speaker.
Did Mr.. Reilly buy the diamonds? No,
he only paid for them. Somebody else
came in advance and told what should
be sold to Mr.. Reilly. This was the
Reilly acted and Mr.. Dillon regarded
his mental capacity.
Alexander Temple and Louis Ioeck-
Ter testified in the same strain. He
spoke OF the testimony Of Louis Zoeck-
Ter who said Mr.. Reilly did not know
the difference between "chuck"
steak and porter house" steak. So
these last four witnesses were like the
others, they could influence Mr.. Reilly.
The lamented Foose told you of Mr..
Reilly's capacity. Then comes Messra.
Clark, Franzheln, List and Handlan
whose testimony was reviewed. There
are four others left. Mr.. LANCE had
actually been in Mr.. ReiIly's store just
once, and Dr.. F-issell remembered
just four instances when he met Mr..
Reilly. Then there is Mr.. Dolan q re-
spectacle merchant, and the other is
Satan Also Fritz Luikert, the only
witness with out exception who had a
fair opportunity to know of Mr.. Relly's
mental capacity, and you can believe
him If you like. The attorney general
don't believe him. In going over the
testimony he did not mention him.
THE OTHER SIDE.
The other side had fifty witnesses,
and, said the speaker, we went every
where and brought enough men who
knew Mr. Reilly to tell you his story.
They are the people who knew him IN
the. store, on the street and on the
boards where nc sat.
DR.: Cooper is oneof these witnesses,
and he says he did not have mental
capacity. It is not necessary to go
through this list of fifty witnesses. and
he could not hope to paint the graphic
picture OF Mr.. Reilly's imbecility they
did in their evidence. Take Mr. Rey-
mann, who tells Mr. Reilly paid no at
tention to business at the board meet
lngs. They nre the evidences of abject
mental imbecility. There arc all sorts
of instances absolutely convincing.
He had nearly forgotten one thing
Michael Reilly's letters. Did the pro-
Donnnts mt i n evi6nDca anv of AJicboa1