Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-01-20

inc contestants none 20 admit that iopor.
ance. But Father Sullivan came nesriv
every DAY aud took MIR. Reilly back To the
sugar room and there they talked vvhat
S S.9"p, Tue speaker did not know. but Father
Suillvan being sane man thcrc ,yas a
purpose in IL. 1t might have been tba,
rather sullivan called because OF Thomas
teilly death 10 offer spiritual consolation
ana ne might have done that uDon several
occasions, out TO say that that required
,.,a1, 70 70 there day after day for days and
weeks The speaker did not believe and he
Giu not think the jury would believe N
nne most reasonable theory was that
ether Sullivan had hand in the prepar-
a.lon OF tnat document. lie reviewed
wnat the witness White had said Era,bcr
sullivan had told him about the oues,tons
70 Dc submitted TO Mr.. Reiily's ATTORNEYS
anu then asked: Don't you believe MIR
hitef i know you do, for there sat
atner sullivan, competent witness, who
tniRht nave gone on the stand and testified
ehout this matter and have contradicted
MT. Whlte. but he did not do H.
he was vitality interested in this matter
re was interested as a man and as a Chris.
ZION inlsister, out no maintained IA silence
and, therefore. you are com
peled 10 accept what Mr.. White said as
true. IL is not only true, but IL Is
accepted by the other side. Wnv
even Mr. Russell would have been
COMPETENT WITNESS
upon that point. but he did not come for
ward. and so we must believe that Father
Sullivan had "A voice and hand in the pre-
paration OF this willn
The speaker alluded TO the frequency
with which like wills had been made In all
ages OF the world and went back far
enough to quote from Issius. the tutor OF
DcmOsthencs, and from the satires az
Horace and from Gibbon. and from
knights England, and others to point his
argument.
his next legal citation was from Lead
ing cases, p. l,l6O, Hugcnon V. Basely, IL
not Oelng Will case. decided in 1907, in
Whlch some pertinent points in French
law Ia the days OF the first Empire were
laid down as 10 requests TO the clergy and
others having confidential or spiritual re-
latluus with "a testatOr, and the reference
OF which was largely upon the public policy
OF wills. made under religions or other
similar influence, cutting of those naturally
enttlod TO bounty lie then passed 10
Schouler on Wills, Sec 22j and 22G, treat
ing OF undue influence, aud then took up
SEC. 2i6, relating 10 confidential relations
anu the opportunities they afford for unuue
influence, aud saving whenever will ap-
peared 10 have UCen obtained by such in
nuence fraud and wrong would be ia rerrcd
But II mad been said by Mr. Riley the
property was not given 10 the cNeCtOrs
they were only trustees. True. but they
had MI tho powers to buy and sell pos
sessed by MIR. Reilly himself.
IL being admitted aud conceded that Faith.
er Sullivan was the spiritual advisor of MIR
Hellly, and was constantly visiting him.
and II he told Mr. White what MIR. White
SAID he told him, then IL became Father
SuIllVan's duty rs q personal beneficiary 70
the extent shown by the evidence as tho
religious guide, the representative of GOD
ana the Saviour OF maulnnd-ths law said
TO such man, Come fui-handed; come
iull-nanded with proof, or influence will be
presumed" Whore there is so much
smoke, there must be a little fire." was the
speakers conclusion
But Mr.. russell said the will was first
drafted In bis Office, and that H. was read
10 Mr.. Reilly when Father Sullivan was
not present, and then another draft was
made, aud there il was signed, and that
there could have been no outside influence.
and MIR. REILLY was free agent. on.
yes, but the outside influence may have
been so strong AS TO have been present with
him at the conference and 10 have entirely
shaped his course. The voice my have
been the voice OF Jacob, but the hand v,as
the hand of Esau's.'"
The next citation, on the question of un-
due influence was from IS y. Y, Marks Y
McGlynn, page $40, and ne said the issue
before the Jury was, Is this the true will of
Mlcnael Kelly. HIS genuine true will
and in ascertaning that fact YOU must as
certain whether lie had mind enough TO
make 1t, and see whether he was not sub.
Ject TO an influence which overthrow the
haLurdi oehI OF ms mind.' And he then
pointed out the influence did not have To
be present at the time the will was made.
out NAV nave been eXertcd weeks before.
and nave become fully acquired and absorb
ed into bis mental system and
nEcoME TAIv7 or MS BEING.
He went back To page 1,113 OF White &
Tudor, Leading Cases. on influence ~
show the influence might have been ac.
CURED long before the making OF the will
and said IL was not necessary for Fotbn,
Sullivan 10 be standing over him, holding
and guiding his pen, aud followed this M
by Davis v Talbot, 5th Md 36g, Bates v
Bates, II w. Va. BIC, the Parrish n. Y.
case. Boyd V. Boyd 90 Pa, and others, 10
show that undue influence was pearlv sI.
Lied 10 fraud. Proceeding, he said II
Bishop kain and Father Sullivan had
gone TO Mr. Reilly before he made his will
and had induced him to give them g 900