The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-10-25
ALL The EVIDENCE In.
Closing Testimony in the Ken
yon Will Case.
1re FOURTEENTH STREET GRADE
MA consroversy sim on Triai-Attornsy
Fined fer Being slow The
Baker wharf Case.

The Kenyon viii case, so far as the evil
xeoce Is concerned, was closed yesterday.
.rd the attorneys will today commence
sssir arguments after Judge Langley shall
hsve rendered his decision rs to the
sss,h Of time each side will have in which
- speak. The contestants yesterday
rorning continued their rebuttal testi-
uony tending TO impeaeh the witnesses Of
shs defense.
The FIRST witness was Fred Rice RoueIl.
sce al the attorneys for the contestants.
Tho testified to having had q conversation
Nth Dr. Coc. one Of kenyon's physicians
snd one Of the defense's witnesses, relative
% Kenyon's condition. DR.. Coe, accord
,nx % the witness, stated that he was only
.consuIting physician. having been called
IN by DIR. Conn. and referred the witness
70 him. This testimony was for the pur-
nose OF showing that DR.. Coe left the i'm
pyession upon Rowell's mind that his
testimony would be in substance similar
70 ,ha, OF Dr.. Conn.
George w. Delsmater, also an attorney
fcs the contestants, testified in substance
The same as Roweli.
Watson w. Moore was recalled and testi-
fed to having called on DIR. Conn for the
purpose of seeking information al to Ken
yon's condition, and that DIR. Conn told
him to go to X. III. Lindsay. bis counsel.
This testimony was intended to follow up
the attempt on the part of the contestants
10 impeach the testimony of DIR. Conn.
Attorney Turner and Stenographer Guie
having testified last Monday afternoon
that statement made by DIR. Conn in
their presence was to the effect that Ken
yon was not of sound mind when he made
the will, whereas he testified TO the con-
trsry when called for the defense as a wit
ness.
Fred Gasch. one of the witnesses of the
will, was recalled by the contestant and
stated that he was not familiar with the
contents Of the affidavit which he, as .
witness. had signed Ia order that the will
could be admitted TO probate. The defense
objected TO Gasch's testifying 10 this affi-
davit, taking the position that the record
stood for Itself, but the court held that in
ssmuch as the defense had introduced the
Affidavit In order TO impeach the testimony
given by Gssch for the contestant. he had
right to explain his position.
J. II. Kunzie, the other witness TO the
Will. N sde substantially the same admis-
sion. namely. pleading ignorance Of the
contents of the affidavit presented TO him
for signature, considering IL merely
formal matter and attaching no impor-
tanee to II.
This closed tho evidence of the contest
ants and a short recess was taken in order
10 give the defense's counsel n chance to
consult as to the ACCESSIBILITY OF introduc-
Ing further sur-rebuttal testimony. This
vas brief and they decided on one witness.
namely, /. ]. Llchtenberg. exjudge Of the
probate department. OF the superior court,
Who presided when the will was admitted
70 probate and who testified in detail as 10
tbs manner In which wills were admitted
10 probate.
Both sides rested and the remainder OF
the afternoon Was consumed with an In
formal discussion between the judge and
the lawyers on both sides as TO the length
o. lime to be allowed each side for arsu-
mens 10 tho jury. also covering final in-
sirlctions to the jury.