The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-16

the famous Reilly will case being tried
before Judge John A. Campbell IN the
circuit court. The last witness exam
ined was James Y. Reilly, one o.
81 Michael Reilly's sons, and contestant
OF the will. Both sides rested their
cases at 9:l5 o'clock yesterday after
noon, and this morning the counsel Will
hand in to Judge Campbell their IN
struc.ions, after which the arguments
will begin, which will probably last
until Thursday evening, when the case
will go to the jury. How long this body
of twelve men and true" will wrestle
with the merits of the case is problem
atical.
Almost the entire morning session OF
court was consumed in wrangllng by
counsel on legal points. The bone OF
controversy was witness Fritz Eu1kert,
who had been recalled to the witness
stand by counsel for the defendants.
The question was put to Luikert as to
whether after Mr.. Reilly's death he had
not gone to the Reilly store and de-
manded an advance Of S25 per month in
his salary, saying that he had an agree
ment to that effect with Michael Reilly.
An objection was at once made by Slr.
ton was changed, when Mr.. Russell
again interposcd with another similar
objection. Mr.. Hutchinson stated that
- the purpose of the questions was to
show that Luikert had great influence
over the old gentleman. The question
was argued at length and the court BUS.
tanned the objection.
The witness was asked il he had not
told Charles L. Bachman that: he had
great influence over Mr.. Reilly, and
that he had Influenced him to give UP
= tho powder business when his sons
were unable to make him do this.
Luikert had answered that he mad not
done this. He denied that he had said
that he had influenced Mr.. Reilly to
ter. Witness denied that he ever at
Z tempted to mako fun OF Mr. Reilly. He
was asked If he had not kept William
Mooney, driver, waiting weile he read
the papers This was objected to by
Mr.. Russell, but the witness exclaimed,
'sthats what l call lie." he denied
s. that he tried to make Mr.. Reilly believe
Asked If he hadn't refused a driver
named Schlosser the use of the tee-
phone to the store, and said, "the boys
b at the store can 90 to HI" he denied.
e Neither had he said that Jim can go
to the devil" He denied that he had
told Charles Bachman within few
weeks that he would remember the
Reilly boys at this trial for what they
had done to him.
Charles T. Bachmann was next called
to the witness stand. He was asked as
to conversation with Fritz Luikert in
February, 1892 but counsel for the will
IS interposed with an objection. Mr..
Hutchinson then changed the form of
the question. Witness answered that
Luikert had told him about powder
house incident and that the '"boys' had
asked him to use his influence in get
ting Mr.. Reilly to quit the powder
business. Luikert had then said to MIR.
Reilly that the powder house might
blow up and ruin him by damage suits,
and then Mr.. Reilly had seemed willing
to quit that branch of the business.
The witness said that in this conyersa-
ton Luikert was showing what an iuflu-
ence he had over Mr.. Reilly. AS to the
Kimberly property incident Luikert had
told witness how he came to buy it. Mr..
Reilly had determined to bid no higher
whom Lui1ert told him it was very vnlu-
4 able property and he had then made q
higher bid, and got the property.
Witness was asked what Luikert had
said to him three or four weeks ago
lH about his testimony in this case. He
answered, after an objection had been
overruled, that Luikert told him he
would do his duty and that the Reilly.
boys had done nothing for him.
The bookkceper, w. A. Schulz, was
called and asked rs to what Luikert had
said to him about an advance alter Mr..
Reilly's death. Objection was made by
objection was sustained and the witness
was dismissed without having answered
question.
William Mooney, driver, was called
s. and asked as to be being DELAYED at the
pork house by Luikert. An objection
to this question was at once raised and
sustained. This witness also didn't got
to answer q question.
Driver Carl Baier was next called and
asked as to Mr.. Reilv's habit about get
ting out of his buggy at tho pork house.
Objection was raised, and the wrangle
continued until after noon, when court
adjourned for the dinner recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
at the beginning OF the afternoon
session the witness stand was occupied
by Carl Baier. The first question
as to whether Mr.. Reilly got out of the
buggy at certain times was objected to,
and sustained. While driving team
ut the pork house from 1885 to 1889 the
witnsss was asked as to the habit of
MIR. Reilly in getting out of the buggy.
never saw him getting out OF the
S. buggy.
To Mr.. Russell the witness said be
was ut the pork house getting loads of
meat snd powder to haul to the store.
William Mooney was next called. To
q Mr.. Hutchinson he said he was in
lSSs-S9 driver for tho Reilly establish
ment. During the first three or four
months he was generally out at the
pork house onoo u day, and he never
&. saw Mr.. Reilly out OF his buggy at the
pork house.
Philip Bachmau next testified. He
quit the employment OF the Reilly
house in May, 1892. He drove Alr.
Reilly out to the pork house eight or
IS tentimes. He could not get out of the
q buggy without assistance. On one oc-
casion he helped him out at Luikert's
wavsicall "Fritz" ont: it Was what wit.