Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-01-18


AZ ELOQUENT SESTrSCr-
tho jury before him to say WAS nor lu, NJ
OF Michael Reilly" There NAV have
been such wills before Mir Reilly's; do
not Know. There may have been such
wills broken by Il jury; / do not know
but do know that never to
this time has the Jurisprudence Of West
Virginia been numbered with u decision in
favor Of SUCH document"
Inc next cited from D. Northeastern Re.
porter, page l3J, as 10 the destruction OF a
lestameutary capacity by "a morbid and
diseased state OF mind, preventing a cor
rect process OF reasoning, laborlng under
insane deNsiOns, mOnOmauia, etc, aud
alter reading from the cases there cited
he said will such rs the one before the
Jury was what the law called an unonicious
Will, and then again quoted from Browns
Medical Jurisprudence, as to presentations
against the VIII being strengthened bv
proof on mental weakness, etc. on the
part Of the testator
lie said he had announced in his opening
a proposition which had not been contro.
vertei and which he did not think could
be successfully COntroverted, and that was
that the burden OF proof as to sanity was
upon the proponents OF the will. and To
support this he quoted from the decisions
OF the supreme Court OF this State in the
were so numerous OF the
INBECILrrY or OLD AGE.
that it had acquired a technical mama in
the DOCKS, and he quoted from Redteld ON
wills as TO the characteristics of senile de-
mentia, and backed this up by extracts
from late decisions OF the West Virginia
Courts, defining that peculiar state.
Mr.. Hubbard then referred To Mr.. Ri
ley's remarks upon the Importance 10 he
gwen to the evidence of the attestinp wit
nesses, and his idea that they should ne n
controlling consideration in arriving at n
verdict. Mr. Riley had quoted from Kerr
V. LunsfOrd, and the speaker did the Same
and said that rule of the Court apnIied
particularly TO the will then before the
Court, and TO the attesting witnesses IN
that will, Messrs. Allison and Hearne but
no one would imagine that the Supreme
Court would have laid down the rule If thc
aLtesung witnesses were imbeciles. or had
their minds weakened by drink. or that
Jhey had tailed TO notice particular things
or noticing them. gave no heed 10 than
.Oh, no, said he. the Supreme Court in
the case cited, laid down proper rule but
only as applying to the particular circum.
stances before them, and is not To be usad
as general rule" lie held that under
some circumstances the evidence of attest
ing witness would reach far below that of
others brought into the case
He cited from WebO V. Dive. II w Va
p. $40, in support Of this view. and safd the
real rule was settled byacoss i 1l'u i tlle
after the decision In Kerr I,,IoSt',.,G lou3
his friend the Attorney General saemed
10 be as far behind hand VIII 10 1oenhe gu
he was win 6fs faci@ ~ |,.I ms law as
* err Y. T,unsfor5 mad hean do,.'Jl3 ai1er
was another decision dirs,ti,, - tnete
TO the clse ~ bar"t4ca,, ePpllcaoie
clued 10 lSJ2-iu which seuile deruantio
evidence wac IRON, s-;,l 1871 saiu tue best
who had tno.gn tho tIstatl,. al" HeISuoors,
Ion" AND WELL.
whether Brother Riley knew that was
- "a " UT MOI Iutl Us the law be Processes