The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-15

The trial to break the will of Michael
Reilly is drawing to close. Saturday
was the fourteenth day, and dnring the
day the defenders OF the will rested
the case. There was the usuai large at
5 tendance of spectators.
M. J. O'Neill was again on the stand
at the morning session. He sald that
the old gentleman was generally con-
suited, but that in fact James Reilly
managed the business, and that the old
gentleman in later years had not the ca
capacity to manage the business with
ont assistance. at times when the bal
ance in the bank would get low he
would get angry and tell James he was
( buying too much. Witness said he
never cav more unreasonable man.
Mr.. Reilly improved every opportunity
to attack his family, especially James;
witness satd it was simply terrible:
In an answer to question witness said
no never saw a better business man
than Thomas Reilly. Witness did not
know much about-.the influence
OF Fritz Luiiert over MIR. Reilly,
but he visited the pork house
often. Others also had an lnfiu-
cnco over the old man, an lnstance being
Michael Friesmuth. Witness said about
all the ability necessary to purchase
whisky before it was distilled was "the
ability to pay for it." Mr. Reilly quar-
relied when loans had to be made from
the bank, and would say the collections
should be made more promptly. WIT
ness and Mr.. Schulz had the comblna-
tion.of the safe, but he did not know
whether or not James had the comblna-
ton. Mr. Reilly would tako money out
of the safe without saying anything
about it. Witness did not think Mr..
Reilly capable of signing note on De-
cember 81, when he visited him regard
ing u renewal of q $1,000 note. He
knew that Bishop Kahn and Father Sui
Ivan cancelled a subscription to the
: Proviso Land Association of Chicago
but he did not see the paperE.
On redirect examination by MIR. Rus
eell the witness said that nothing had
ever been said about charge being
made by him for church work if the
executors reduced his salary. Witness
eaid that during the first year of the
executorship the executors received
something like $4,000 as commissions,
at five per cent. Witness said that he
did not want it understood that the
executors neglected their duty. The
witness WAS asked regarding q number
Of letters offered in evidence before this,
butnothing new was brought out. In
regard to his statement to Hubbard
that Mr. Reilly was not capable OF run
ming his Guinness, witness said Mr..
Reilly was very inactive and could not
move around and look after matters
personally and had to have & corps of
assistants. AS to D1r. Reilly making
the statement to him that Thomas had
been overrated as business man, wit
ness said this was said after Thomas
death, probably in Confidential con-
versation. N1r. Reilly had never talked
with witness about the business quail
fcations of James.
The contestants Of the will gave
notice that they would want Fritz
Luikert on the stand again.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
short, an adjournment being taken at 5
o'clock, so that the jurors could visit
their homes over Sunday. Tho usual
Z large afternoon crowd was on hand.
: Mr.. ONuill was again on the stand on
z redirect examination by Mr.. Russell.
He was asked again us to his visits to
Mr.. Reilly on December 81 ana IS, 1891,
and said he did not believe Mr.. Reilly
was then able to write, as he was
wrapped up in blanket at the time
He had knowledge of note against
James Reilly, which he produced. One
was for 81, 47O dated October 5, 1874, and
s tho other for Sl,744 At, dated January
%, 1878. The latter was endorsed "sus-
pended January %, 1875" A third.
Sl,213 Al, February 16, 1856. This was
suspended September %. 1892. The
witness did not know much about the
wholesale grocers association or its OBJ
jects. Tho meat business was not
: losing business except on one certain
> OCCASION.
On redirect examination by Mr.. Rus
sell the witness said that separate set
OF books were Kept for the meat bust
ness in 1892, and that money wns lost.
He did not know whether money was
made or lost before the separate set OF
books was adopted.
- The papers admitting the will to pro-
: bate were submitted, and Mr.. Russell
Z then said it was agreed that the family
OF Thomas Reilly consisted, besides his
widow of Thomas W. Reilly. who was
OF age: Matilda G. Reilly, who was OF
: age, ]. ]. Reilly, aged 90, Mary G. Reilly,
aged 10. Joaephine Reilly, eyed IA,
Michael Reilly, aged II, and Helen @.
9 Reilly, aged 8; that the family OF George
Reilly consisted OF himself and wife,
there being no children; that the family
s of James Reilly consisted OF himself,
wife and two children, Charles, aged 5,
3 and Agnes, aged l, the latter having
been born since the death of Michael
Reilly; that John Reilly was not mar
& RED that Mrs. Jamison's family con-
: sisted OF herself, husband and two
childron, Henry, aged 10, and Matilda,
aged S.
Mr.. Hubbard added that Thomas
Reilly, son OF Thomas Reilly,is one of
8 the contestants. at this point the will
defenders rested their case.
The speeches in the case will prob
ably commence Monday afternoon, and
will occupy three or four days. The
4 case may not go to the jury before
Thursday evening or Friday morning
500 Reward, 500.
The reader of this paper will DO
pleased to learn that there is at least