The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-24

uotOIWlnlUg rs TO mo mental capacity
OF said Michael Reilly at tho time OF OK.
ecution Of said paper.
No. II. II tho fury believe from tho
evidence that said Michael Reilly ut tho
tinO OF tho execution OF tho will in
question possessed enough mind 10 lin.
dorstRnd tho nature OF tho business hu
was engaged In, 10 rec0lloct tho property
he meant 10 dispose OF, tho offsets OF
his bounty and tho manner in which
hc wished to dispose Of that property,
and TINT In executing that will no acted
freely thon 1t cannot DO ilnpeachud oven
though tho Jury find from tho evidence
TINT no wns influenced In making Il by
pcrycrse opinions mud unreasonable
prcjudices concerning his children or
somo OF them.
No. L. Undue influence 10 over.
throw Will must DO proved BY tho con.
testants; 1t will not DO Inferred.
No. IL. Undue influence 10 avoid q
will must be su3ll as to overcome the
FREQ agency OF the testNtor nj tue time
tho instrument was made.
No. III. Tho burden Of proving that
tho paper writing OF June Is, 1891, pur-
porting 10 be tho will OF Michael Reilly,
was procured by tho exercise Of undue
influence Is upon tho contestants. I'm.
less, therefore, tho Jury belioyo from Il
prepondcrnnce OF tho evidence that
such paper writing was procured to DO
mado by the exercise otunduc influence
operating upon tho mind OF Michael
Reilly at tho tlmo Of its execution II Is
not to be sot aside on tho ground OF
such influence.
No. 10. Undue influence In tho max
ing Of n will il not to bo presumed but
must be proven. Moro opportunity for
tho exercise OF Influence affords no pro-
sumption and creates no inference that
undue influence in any given case was
in fact cxertcd.
CONTESTANT INSTRUCT rs.
No. |. Tho burden OF tho proof is on
tho proponents Of tho paper writing in
question to prove by a prepouderanco
OF evidence that at tho timo of the OK.
Ccution Of tho will deccdons was OF
sound mind.
No. .. Tho jury arc instructed that
while time 10 DO looked 10 BY tho iury
in determining tho competency Of tho
tcstator to make q will il the timo when
the will was executed; yet tho iury arc
instructed that evidence OF business
transactions by Mr.. Reilly both before
and after the execution OF the paper
writing in question indicating his men
tai condition may be considered in tho
question Of his capacity at tho time the
paper writing was executed.
No. 5. The court instructs the Jury
that the evidence OF physicians who
were with Mr.. Reilly during tho time it
was charged he was OF uusound mind is
entitled to great weight
No. 1. The jury arc instructed that
whether tho paper writing in question
is the will oil tho deceased or not ia TO
DO determined like any other question
in view OF the legal evidence in tho ease
and no controlling effect is 10 be given
to the testimony OF subscribing wit
nesses.
No. 8. Ii the jury find from the cyi.
dence that tho paper writing in question
is unreasonable, unjust and unnatural,
these are circumstances which NAV be-
considered by ihom in connection with
tho other evidence in the case on tho
subject OF the mental capacity of Mr..
Reilly at the time he made til paper
writing.
No .. II the jury believe from tho
evidence that tho tcstator, Mr.. Reilly,
had for long time prior to the execu-
ton OF the paper writing in question, a
delusloH which perverted his mind.
causing him to repel and treat his chill.
drcu uanaturally, cruelty and unreason-
ably, and that his delnsion became a
monomania 10 respect toThis children
and that it operated upon and inllu-
enced his mind so rs to induce him TO
make this paper writing, then tho Jury
must find that said paper writing is no.
his true will.
No.. I. II the jury find from the evil
dcnce that the paper writing in question
was the product Of an insane delusion as
to the character and conduct OF the tcs-
tator's children, which operated upon
his mind at the time the paper writing
was made, they mnst find for the con-
testants.
No. 5. II the jury find from the owl.
dence that Michael Reilly at the time
he signed tho paper writing in question
was lnboring under delusion OF fact
producing monomania rs to tho con.
duct OF his sons and daughter, and that
this delusion lead him to sign said
paper writing, then it is not his will
although tho jury may be satisfied by
tho evidence that said Michael Reilly
was perfectly conscious OF the nature OF
the tcstamentary. disposition OF his
estate and aware OF its effect as to his
children.
No. 8. Ii the jury find from tho evil
dence that the mind OF the ,cstator,
Michael Reilly, was under an insane de.
fusion as to the character and deserts OF
his children, SO rs to cause him to repel
them, and to treat them harshlv, unrca-
sonably and unjustly; and, if they fur
Their tlud from tho evidence that this
insane delusion existed prior to tho ax.
c:ution Of the said paper writing, then
it is the duty Of the proponents, named
as executors in said paper writing, 10
establish tho fact that such insane de.
fusion did not operate and had no effect
on the said Reilly at the time when he
made said paper writing.
No. 10. II the jury find from the eyi.
dence that the mind OF tho testator was
affected by an insane dolusion which
operated SO as to cause him to rcpel
his children and to troRt them harshly,
unreasonably and unjustly; and, il thcv
further find from tho evidence that this
insane delusion existed in the mind OF
the testator prior to the execution of
said paper writing, thon the burden OF
proof Is upon the proponents to estab.
lish by prepopderance OF evidence
that said dsluslon did not operate and
had no effect on the mind Of Michael
Reilly at the time said paper writing
was mnde. NJ :