Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-21
Direct Evidence in 0lmstead Case is
Finished.
WITNESSES HEARD N REBUTTAL
The Long-Drawn-Out viii Case
Goes O1.s
f AMILY TIES MO n Y


jour- ment of the court yesterday afternoon.
When the trial was adjourned yesterday,
Mr.. Perry was questioning Mr.. Olmstead as
to the estrangement in the family, and Mr..
Olmstead admitted that his wife suffered in
tensely because of the estrangement be-
tween her and her mother and sister, but
would not admit that the estrangement was
the result of the filing by her of legal pro-
ceedings against them in 1854. And when
Mr.. Perry asked him if Mrs. Olmstead's pain
was not due to the filing of the legal pro-
ceedings, Mr.. Olmstead's counsel objected
to the inquiry, and the objection was sus-
tanned.
Before proceeding this morning Mr.. Perry
asked permission to question Mr.. Olmstead
as to the two alleged fraudulent transac-
lions referred to yesterday. the equity cause
of Curtis and Hilyer against Mr.. Olmstead
and others, and the case of Redding against
them, for the purpose of impeaching the
Credibility of Mr.. Olmstead as witness.
Counsel for Mr.. Olmstead, as they did yes
terday. objected, on the ground that the
inquiry would not be responsive to the direct
examination and that IL would be irrelevant
and immaterial, and the court sustained the
objection, Mr. Perry again noting an ex-
ception.
Another Exception.
Upon Mr.. Olmstead stating that after the
reconciliation between him and his wife on
one side and Mrs. Hutchinson and Mrs.
Webb on the other, he desired the re-estab-
]ishment of cordial feelings, Mr.. Perry asked
him if it was not true that Mrs. Oimstead's
charges against her mother and sister had
rever been withdrawn, and Mr.. Perry also
asked him if he could expect the re-estab-
lishment of perfect cordiality with those
charges remaining standing. Mr.Olmstead's
counsel objected to the inquiry, however,
and again the court sustained them, Mr..
Perry noting an exception.
Mr.. Olmstead admitted that when Mrs.
Olmstead sold house for 81 600 he invested
the proceeds therefrom in various ways.
The profits of the investments he collected,
and he admitted that out of them he paid
some of her bills. He was under the i'm
preston that she had separate bank ac-
count with Riggs & Co., but was not GER
tain. Explaining that he advised his wife
against joining with her mother and sister
in the sale of certain real estate, he stated
that ne did so because he believed that the
property should be held for an advance in
value; but admitted that he thought his wife
was acting wisely in selling her own prop
erty-the house above referred to-
Having stated that he knew all about the
business of Mrs. Olmsteads father, the late
Hayward NJ Hutchinson, and that he had
most of Mr.. Hutchinson's papers. Mr.. Perry
asked Mr.. Olmstead if Mrs. Hutchinson was
not compelled to sue for the recovery of
those papers. His counsel objected. and the
court ruled against Mr.. Perry, the usual ex-
ception being noted.
Admitting that he frequently used the
word DAMN which Mr.. Perry remarked was
not individually very Objectionable, Mr..
Olmstead denied that he ever used 1t before
his servants In speaking Of Mrs. Hutchin-
son and Mrs Webb. And in denying the
statement of DR.. q. T. Sewers that when
the physician told him the exclusion of his
wife's mother and sister frorn the sick
chamber would prejudice his (O1mstead's}
interests, he consented to their admission,
referred fa-
ment as rot"
other Denials..
Referring to the evening Mrs. olmstead
suffered the CONFUSION, Mr.. Olmstead adj
mitted that the pair of horses he twice all
lowed her to drive earlier in the evening
could trot between 2:20 and 2:25, and that
they were very powerful horses.
DO you deny that Mrs. Olmstead COM
planned, in returning from the drive, that
you had driven SO fast that you nearly
killed Nero
Now, is it not true that you alone drove
that evening"
mo, it is not Mrs. OImstead herself
twice asked to have the reins, and I told
DR.. Sewers that evening that she had twice
taken the reins that evening. and that l
never saw the horses go faster.'
II have no doubt you told the doctor So"
remarked Mr.. Perry. Significantly.
On MS Qlrect examination OlWStedQ
stated that the first time his wife ever
spoke to him about making her will was
about week before she made it. but when
Mr.. Perry asked him If he had not spoken
to her about It prior to May l. 1889 Ghe
June), he said he was rather certain that
he had not. He again declared that he
never saw it, and was not aware of the
tingly had filed it for probate in the fol-
lowing September, and he also declared
that he had no conversation at any time
with his wife as to the contents of the will.
But did you not give away some of your
wife's effects before the probating of the
will?"
II did not"
Ibid you not give her sewing machine to
Miss Lucy Corkhill before the probating of
the will?"
Il did give them
and did you not send away boxes of
stead's before the probating Of your wife's
will, September 20 following?"
81 cent away nothing until after Mrs.
Webb's letter to me of September %. 1889,
and think that 1 disposed of none Of Mrs.
Olmstead's effects until after that date"
Other Testimony.
Mr. Howard s. Nyman. the testimony of
Mr.. Olnstead being concluded, stated that
he knew Mr.. and Mrs. Olmstead very well,
other, observing no indications of unhappi-
ness on the part of Mrs. Olmstead.
Mr.. Davis then introduced in evidence the
record of the Probate Court showing that
the will was filed September, 2, 1889; that it
was probated the Goth of that month, and
that notice of Mrs. Webbts intention to con-
test 1t was not filed until December %, 1891
In Rebutta1.
That concluded the testimony on behalf
Of Mr.. Olmstead, his counsel reserving the
right to call an absent witness later on
If necessary, and then in ,tebuttal Mrs
Webb's counsel called NJ. LII Moudy to the
witness stand. He stated that he is the
superintendent of Rock Creek cemetery
where Hayward NJ. Hutthihson Is buried
al recalled a conversation between him
and Mr.. Olmstead relative to the vault in
which Mr.. Hutchinson was buried, the
object of his testimony being to contradict
Mr.. Olmstead when he said that he and his
wife knew nothing Of the placing of Mr..
Hutchinson's body in the vault until after
it had been done
Ella Nash having stated that she rode
several times with Mrs. Olmstead Martin,
Mr. Olmstead's ccachnan. swore that she
rode but once. The woman was then re-
called to contradict Martin. but Mr.. Ohm
stead's counsel ccntended that this could
not be done, and the court sustained their
contention, another exception resulting, of