Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-05-18

had In his possession were then placed In
evidence. One, dated in 1870, was the near
est in point Of time to the date of the will.
Judge Holt, said the witness. was not In
active practice when he knew him. In con-
clusion, the witness said that he was not
acquainted with Miss Throckmorton-
The Mysterious VIII.
Mr.. ]. Nota McGill, the register Of Wills
was the next witness called. He said that
the paper purporting to be the will was in
the records Of his office when he was ap-
pointed. The will was received August &C.
1906, In an envelope which was addressed
in a disguised handwriting. There was
absolutely nothing about 1t to show whence
II had come or by whom 1t had been sent
to the registers Office
At the conclusion of Mr.. McGill's testi-
mOny the court took recess Tor a half
hour. The first witness placed upon the
stand after recess was Mr.. Tecumseh Sher-
man, son of the late Gen. Sherman. He
is now lawyer in New York
Mr.. Sherman said that he was naturally
familiar with his mothers signature. The
name Of Mrs Ellen B. E. Sherman was at
tached to the Will. and when the paper was
handed to him he, without moment 8
hesitation, pronounced the signature to be
that of his mother Her maiden name was
Ellen Boyle Ewing.
In answer 10 a question from Mr.. VIII
son, Mr. Sherman said that he had at
times seen his mother write her name as
ii Is written o. the will, but she usually
signed herself Ellen Ewing Sherman. To
legal documents. however, 1t was her Gus
tom to sign her full name.
Mr.. Sherman said that he had In his pos
session, in New York, number or papers
bearing his mothers signature. MIR. Will
son said that he would reserve the right
to further croSS-eXamine this witness with
reference to the signatures on these pa
pers at such time as they could be pro-
duced in court
The attorneys for the heirs by the will
81
Mr.. Worthington objected He said that
the appearance and character of the paper
clearly showed that 1t had been revoked.
The testator spoke of "his signature and
SEAL The corner where, presumably. the
Sc al would have been placed had been torn
cff- The burnt places were too obvious to
ned to ne spoken Of Mr. Worthington
also called attention to the fact that the
paper had been torn and then pasted on a
backing. The names of the alleged teStator
and witnesses were on a piece of paper
separate from that containing the words
which purported to be a will
He then read a number of authorities to
show that when will was torn or burned
while in the possession of the testator it
vas proof of its revocation. In this case
the presumption is that the will was in the
possession of the testator until such time
as it fell into the hands of the unknown
person who sent ii to the register of wills.
If - lawyers on the other side, he said.
knew by whom the will was sent to the
register now was the time to produce such
evidence The prima facie evidence, he
Gained. was to the effect that Judge Holt
hsd revoked the will before his death.
TIE next witness called was Miss Lizzie
Hynes of Lebanon, KY, one OF the two
benefciaries under the will She denied
that she had ever seen the document be-
fore
Mr.. Luke Devlin, the executor by the will,
testified that he was never the custodian
of the alleged will The first time he ever
saw II was v hen It was in the temporary
possession of an Evening Star reporter, In
the office of the register of wills.