Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-26
THE OLMSTEAD WILL CASE
MI. Davis Concludes His Argument and
Mr.. Wilson Begins.
Both Attorneys Spoke for Mr.. Ohm
stead-Case May Go to the Jury
Tomorrow Afternoon.

Mr.. Henry E. Davis, on behalf Of Mr.. John
F. sOlmstead, the sole beneficiary under the
contested will of his wife. concluded his
| argument to the jury shortly before noon to-
| day. when Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson addressed
the jury. also on behalf of Mr.. Olmstead.
Mr.. Davis characterized the testimony
| offered on behalf of Mrs. Linda Hutchinson
Webb who is contesting the will of her
sister, as consisting for the most part of
mere servants gossip, particularly that re-
spectng the domestic life of Mr.. and Mrs.
Olmstead. But, on the part of Mr.. Ohm
stead declared Mr.. Davis, the testimony of
some Of the most distinguished people in the
country had been offered, to the effect that
the devotion of Mr.. Olmstead and his wife
for each other was as marked as it was loyal
and kind.
The VIII Not Unusual.
Referring to the contention on the other
side that Mrs Olmstead had, in making her
husband the sole and absolute beneficiary
of her will, passed over those naturally the
objects of her bounty, her mother, her sis
ter and niece. Mr. Davis declared that moth
Ing was more natural nor more righteous
than that wife should give all she had to
the husband she loved, or that a husband
should give his all to the wife he loved. 1t
was true, as claimed on their side, said Mr..
Davis, that Mrs. Olmstead was under the
domination of her husband, and bound to
him by chains, But gentlemen" exclaim-
ed Mr.. Davis, Ibis domination was love and
the chains were of roSeS.'
Mr.. Davis did not deny that Mr.. Ol:nstead
lacked the features and grace of an Apollo
l:elviGere, or that he was brusque, harsh,
plain-spoken in his intercourse with men,
but, he declared, even the witnesses of the
other side pictured him in his home life as
loving. gentle and devoted husband.
Hence. was 1t strange that his wife, asked
Mr. Davis, should desire that he should
have all she possessed or might thereafter
possess?
Over Two Years Before Contest.
The will in question. explained Mr.. Davis.
was admitted to probate in September,
1850. without the slightest objection on the
part OF Mrs. Webb. although she had been
given full notice. 1t was not until Decem-
her %, 1891. said Mr.. Davis. that Mrs.
Webb filed her rotice of contest That fail
ure to sooner contest the will was pre-
sumption upon which the jury, said Mr..
Davis. might base a belief that for two
years End three months Mrs. Webb be-
lieved that her sister knowingly did just
what she had every right under the law of
God and man to do.
The truth of the whole matter was, said
Mr.. Davis, in conclusion that the other
side had resorted to the fimsiest and most
fragmentary bits of testimony, CLEANED, for
the most part, from the kitchen, to take
from a devoted husband that which a de-
voted. loving little wife had provided for
him as she lay almost within the portals of
death.
MIR. Wilson on the Evidence.
Mr.. Wilson addressed himself to discus
sion of the evidence introduced on the 9TH
er side, claiming that 1t not only utterly
failed to sustain their claim of domination
on the part of Mr. Olmstead over his wife,
but 1t also wholly failed to show that Mrs.
Olmstead lacked testamentary capacity, Or
that her will was procured through the
fraud of her husband.
Counsel In the case thought today that
the arguments would conclude in time to