The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-19

come on the part of the people generally
becomes even more intense than 1t has
been At both the morning and after
noon sessions yesterday the court room
was packed to sufocatiou, and numbers
could not gain admittance at ali Seats
were at premium and were only OBJ.
tainable by the early Corners. Alr. Hub
bard continued his argument at the
morning session and completed it dur
ing the afternoon He was followed by
s. his colleague, Hon. job n a. Hutchln-
son, of Parkersburg, who OF course mad
not finished when court adjourned Tor
the day.
The sensation of the day, in fact the
sensation of the entire trial, came in
the afternoon yesterday, when MIR.
Hubbard in the course of his remarks
in reference to the statement by Attor-
ney General Reilly that verdict for
the plaintiffs would wreck q happy
home-that of Mrs. Thomas NJ. Reilly,
he introduced letter addressed to the
attorneys for the contestants by Mrs.
Thomas NJ. Reilly and her daughter,
Matilda, dated yesterday, in which they
cast their lines with the other children
in this contest.
Upon resuming his speech at the
morning session, Mr.. Hubbard referred
been mentioned several times in this
trial He said that case does not apply
to condition of affairs such rs existed
in connection with this case. Other
cases were cited by the gentleman,
among others that of Bowden vs..
knight, which he said fits the case on
trial. The question involved was de-
clared by the court to be whether or
not the testator was laboring under
# delusion. The jury in that case found
that Knight was not of disposing mind
and memory. Other cases were cited,
and the speaker said that the witnesses
had testified that hatred of his chill
dren possessed Mr.. Reilly.
Mr.. Hubbard took up the discussion
of undue influence as he said he would
, the evening before. He called the po-
Rition of the defense regarding undue
influence untenable. Undue influence
could be considered. It is shown that
3 Michael Reilly was easily influenced;
he only stood firm on one matter, his
hatred of his SONS. The testimony had
Z shown that when tho sons advocated
any measure the old man would take
the opposite course. The speaker then
reviewed the testimony in defense Of
Z his position; What were the reasons
for this harsh treatment OF his children
The reasons lie in tho demented mind
of Michael Reilly Father Sullivan
knew that Mr.. Reilly cherished this in
tense dislike to his own children. The
speaker next reviewed the transaction
OF making the will. Judge
Rogers being first applied to,
Mr.. Russell. Referring to Father Sui
livan again he said that it was hard to
believe that n man who had won hon
ors in the service OF the church could
have any influence on this will. Itss
81 harder yet to believe that he said to
~, ! - -
would finally land them in the poor
house. He had thought Father Sulli-
van would get on the witness stand and
deny this statement, but he did not.
He could not understand how Father
Sullivan could go about tho streets
talking about this case when he was
sure that the conversations would be
been denied. He expressed surprise
that tho minister of the living God,
who has the care of the. souls of the
boys, would do this.
MIR. Riley says that Father Sullivan
has no interest in this will. Yet up to
utor. And the children, who helped
their father make the money, have re-
ceived $4,000.
AS to the visits at the store Mr.. Hub
bard said that there were numerous
b such visits by Father Sullivan, the in
terviews taking place generally in the
sugar ROOM According to the testi-
mony it was Father Sullivan who took
MIR. Reilly to that part of the building.
- What about these visits? The pro-
ponents claim that Father Sulli-
van was making pastoral calls.
Mr.. Hubbard said that pastoral calls
are not generally received in sugar
rooms. He did not believe Mr.. Riley
himself believed them to be pastoral
Z calls. As to there being too many calls,
Mr.. Hubbard said that the calls made
IS after the will was executed show that
Father Sullivan did not intend TO allow
the testatcr to change his mind. He
spoke of the threat of Father Sullivan
~ that years of litigation will follow. The
contestants would prefer years of litiga-
ton to having money doled ont to them
80 by q man who had threatened them
with the poor house. He said that
whore q priest is the beneficiary OF
- Wilt lies with the proponents to dis
prove undue influence. He cited opin-
ions in support of this position.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Attic afternoon session Mr.. Hub
i bard resumed his argument on the line
& he had dwelled before dinner. He con-
tinued his citation from the Oregon
case, regarding the exercise of undue
Influence. When an Inference OF I'M
due influence is shown, the burden OF
rebuttal is cast on the other side. The
next case was that OF Carroll VS.. House,
and in this an unnatural disposition of
S the property was shown it matters not
whether the influence be great or small.
and the influence exerted was shortly
before death by the teatator's spiritual
advisor. He called attention to Penn
syivania case, Boydvs Boyd: the court
in declaring the opinion says that eN-
centricities apparent only late in life are
taken TO indicate morbid disposition.
Another case was cited where the in
sfuence was by a confidential adviser,
which necessarily need not raise the
ground ofundue influence; but the pre-
sumption may arise from the attending
s circumstances.
Other cases were cited. One states.