The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-04-18
DEBORAH M. HOYT'SWILL
Important Findings Of the Jury In The
Contest.
MOREHEAD's SHARE
The Case Attracts Much Atten ton
From the Fact That IL Involves
the Names OF Many
Prominent People.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
HELENA, April 17.-The jury in the case
of Mrs. Jennie M. Morehead VS.. T. II.
CleweIl, ct al, returned q verdict to-day in
favor of the plaintiff. This breaks the will
of Mrs. Deborah M. Hoyt, and will give
her granddaughter, Mrs. Morehead, one-
third share in the estate, valued at nearly
$4,000. The jury returned IL findings OF
fact, all favoring the plaintiff. The jury
found that the signature of Mrs. Hoyt to
the will in dispute was procured by fraud
and undue influence, and that she was
not of sound mind at the time the will
was made. No notice of appeal has yet
been gwen.
This case has excited great deal of in
terest here, as tho issues involved are con-
siderable and the people connected with
it very well known. Mrs. Deborah M.
Hoyt. over whose will the contest was
made, was an old timer, having lived here
with her husband, Edward M. Hoyt, since
the COS. She was formerly a Mrs. Russell,
having first married in Wisconsin. Her
first husband left her considerable prop
erty and being q business woman this in
creased rapidly. OF her first marriage
there was born to her two sons, James
and Frank II. Years after she had mar
ried Mr.. Hoyt, James Russell married and
died, leaving n daughter. This girls
| mother died also and she was left an or
phan. Her parrnts had been living i'm Ar
kansas and when Jennie M. Russell, for
| that was her name, became an orphan,
Mrs. Hoyt sent for her and kept her for
years. providing well for her.
In December, 1890, Mrs. Hoyt became
very ill. She believed she was going to
die and at the suggestion OF a friend a
/ lox lad To- Lrah har
| had delayed matters. however, until al
most too late. She was very low and get-
ting worse rapidly when the attorney was
| sent for. He came about o'clock in the
morning and proceeded to prepare a will.
| When it was completed two neighbors were
/ called in to witness it. Although they
did so they swore i'm the trial just ended
| that Mrs. Hoyt was almost too feeble to
| sign the paper; that her eyes were closed
and that aside from the nodding of her
head she affirmed nothing. She did not
speak to them and apparently did not
recognize them. A few days later the old
lady died.
In due time the will was probated and
t. III. Clewell aud Charles Kinda, two
prominent men who were named as ex-
ecutors. were appointed as such by the
court. On appraisal the estate was found
|
| willed to her son, Frank H. Russell, and
the other half to her husband, Edward NJ.
Hoyt. There was provision in the will
which required each of the two heirs TO
pay Jennie M. Russell, her grand
daughter, S25 month until she became
married. Many people were surprised at
this as the girl seemed to be very dear to
the old lady and they supposed she would
| get moro of the estate.
Not a great while afterward Jennie Rus
| sell moved to Hot Springs, Ark, where
she married Samuel Morehead. Some
| time last year, becoming convinced that
| she had not received as much of the
estate as her grandmother really intended
| her to have, she consulted attorneys and
finally commenced suit against the execu-
| tors and heirs to have the will set aside
| and the estate so partitioned that she
would receive a considerable share.
The case which began last week was q
particularly interesting one. The plain
tiff was represented by Attorney Wood of
Hot Springs, Ark, and Henry McIntrre of
this city; the executors and heirs were
defended by Col. G. B. Nolan and Carl
Rasch. The plaintiff endeavored to prove
that Mrs. Hoyt was not of sound dispos-
ing mind when the will was made. The
defense tried to prove that she was and,
also, that the plaintiff did not commence
the contest within one year after she at
tanned her majority. which If true would
have thrown out the case.
The attorney who had made the will
died sometime ago. He, of course. would
have been the most important witness
had he been living. Much testimony was
introduced by each side. One of the wit
nesses for the defense caused quite a SEN
sation. This was Frank II. Russell. heir of
Mrs. Hoyt, his mother, and consequently
defendant. Russell dissipates excess
sively. His attorneys had before the case
begun taken his deposition and were
about to send him out of town, when the
attorneys for the other side hearing OF it,
subpoenaed him for the purpose of keep
ing him here. AS he was here, the de-
fense could not very well help putting
him on the stand. As they expected, he
proved a bad witness for himself. He
contradicted statements made by him in
his deposition and made out q very bad
case. He swore that he had been given
$50 to leave town with after he had made
the deposition. This, however. was his
own money, the sum having been given
him from his share of the estate. Russell
| is not altogether responsible for his state
ments and he did his case much harm.
The argument began Saturday and was
completed late yesterday afternoon. when
| the case was given TO the jury with the re-
suit first stated.