Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-29
Jury Discharged in the 0lmstead
Will Case.
WERE UNABLE TO AGREE
Five Weeks and Unlimited EIo-
quence for Naught.
T He XT T RI A L


| the case the jury in the Olmstead will case
reported to Judge Bradley this morning
that they were hopelessly divided. having
been unable to agree on any of the four
questions at issue. The court thereupon
discharged them the five weeks consumed
| in the second trial of the case going, there
fore, for nought. Counsel for Mr.. Olmstead
then endeavored to have Judge Bradley set
the case down for trial before him next
week, but the motion was overruled. the
court remarking that while in his opinion
the case should not consume more than
weeks time, it would, on the next trial
probably run along for the same time &C.
cupied in the trial just concluded, and that
would seriously Inconvenience not only 9TH
err suits, but also counsel. Hence, for that
reason, he overruled the motion Mr.. Davis
then asked that the case be set down for
trial in January, and when Judge Bradley
denied that motion, Mr.. Davis gave notice
that he would, on the first day of the jan
uary term of the court. move to set the
case down for an early hearing.
After Foreman Bailey had informed the
court that the jurywere unable to agree be-
Cause of a hopeless divergence on the testi-
mCny in the case, Judge Bradley discharged
them. expressing his regret that he was
&C mpelled to do so, and also regretting that
they had been locked up since Wednesday
afternoon.
Mr. Henry E. Davis, of counsel for Mr..
John F. Olmstead, the sole and absolute
beneficiary under his wifes will, then
moved the court to set the case down for
trial next week.
Mr. R. Ross Perry, of counsel for Mrs.
Linda Hutchinson Webb. who is contesting
her sisters will, opposed the motion Mrs.
Webb and her mother. Mrs. Hayward Nj.
Hutchinson. explained Mr.. Perry, were
rIx Of fhnfr a a r.
tendance during the trial, and it would be
a hardship to compel a reoccurrence of
that. Then, too, remarked Mr.. Perry, there
was an atmosphere about the case now
which should be allowed to be swept away
before trying the case again. And other
suitors in the court mad a right to be heard
before the case should go on again, he
said. Counsel in the case, too, had other
pressing engagements.
Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson, on behalf of Mr. DIM
stead, remarked that Mrs. Webb and her
mother, while witnesses in the case. We're
rot required to daily attend, and as to the
atmospheric condition referred to by Mr..
Perry. it appeared that only the other side
was feaful of it. His side was not, and as
the case was one brought by the other side
no objection to an early trial should come
from it.
Losing Witnesses.
Mr.. Davis stated that Mr.. Olmstead had
| lost three important witnesses through
death. and 1t was not improbable that one
hut learned of during the past few days
might also be lost If the trial was further
delayed. He thought that Mr.. Oimstead
was fully entitled to an early trial Of the
case.
Mr.. Enoch Totten, speaking for Mrs.
estate at issue Mr.. Olmstead would lose
| nothing by a reasonable postponement of
the trial. One of their witnesses had gone
back to California, and 1t would be unfair
70 hr hsar artr nvlon frnv har hAv,H
He was tired of the case. remarked Mr..
| Totten. the court was tired of it, probably
everyone else was, and no real reason had
been given for an immediate trial.
Everybody Tired.
Judge Bradley, in overruiing the motion.
| said he fully agreed with Col. Totten to
being tired of the case. It had occupied the
| courts attention for five weeks when he
| believed that but for the introduction into
| the case of trifling matters it could have
been disposed of within a weeks time.
| While will cases are entitled to precedence
| they should not be allowed to occupy the
attention of the court to the unreasonable
| exclusion of all other business. So far as
| the daily attendance of Mrs. Webb and her
| mother was concerned, said the court they
were not compelled to be in court every day,
and could have remained away about when
| ever they wished. The litigation should be
speedily settled. but because of his consid-
| Grafton for both counsel and other suitors
| before the court he would overdue the
motion.
The trial concluded today was the second
| che, the first resulting in favor of Mrs.
Webb, the will feing set aside. But the
Court of Appeals reversed that Judgment
last winter. The estate involved. one-half
of that of the late Hayward NJ. Hutchin-
son. is said to be worth rot less than one
| or two hundred thousand dollars. While
the members of the jury would not talk. 1t
| is understo cd that a majority of them
voted against the validity of the will
The Jury.
1t is understood from reliable source
| that the jury of eleven men. one juror hav-
| ing been excused early in the trial because
| of scarlet fever in his family. stood eight
against the will and three in favor of 1t.
But it is said they never got beyond the
first question. that which related to the
testamentary capacity of Mrs. Olmstead at
the time she made the will, Juce 6, 1859.