The morning times., 1896-06-26
BON MARcHE. sI4-4I6 Seventh St.

He took up reading glass and asked til
jurors to surround linn. Half of them a
Il time did his bidding. Mr.. Worthingto
walked around behind the exhibit boar
on Which many OF the letters in evideno
lay, and watched the major. The latte
showed things to the jury. He showed then
letters in tile will that were unquestion
ably the work OF Judge Holt.
He laid Mr.. Worthingtons gelatine trans
parences on the mysterious sheet, and in
sisted that the ,transparences themselve
under tile glass indicated that the letter
and words had never been traced. Tn
jurors looked for fifteen minutes, Judg
Bradley stepped out and caught a breati
of fresh air. The malt gave Major Butter
worth breathing spell, too,
The la awyer laiu down the reading gias
and proceeded.
Isn't it strange that when Judge Hol
went back 10 the old home. all his rela
| ives around, that they never gathered
| about in family reuDion?'' asked the
| speaker. docs il not look as IL some one
was throwing "a barrier around him?
| That spot was the oasis OF his life, he
said, and yet these kind relatives tool
no interest in his visits
CALLED THEM ENEMIES.
| Judge Holt alwa IS referred to his family
| as his enemies. They became such when
| the war broke out. The judges solicitude
| for the welfare Of Major ThrocknOrtOn
| and his family was everywhere evident
/ The lawyers on the other side did not
| hesitate to assail the character OF Luke
Devlin. This man had been recon-
! mcnded by Judge Holt for higher bonors
! because or his honest, upright character.
When Carvaiho said he did not believe
DpVllu Tie will The
the other side stopped their attack On an
honest man.
Luke Deylin had been placed on parade
as a forger. II had even been predict ed
that he would leave town before the
trial ended. The opposing side, however,
lad at last discovered the faliacy Of their
ConJectures. and now, in tl.eir extremity f,
the lawyers had attempted to besmirch
the fair name OF Miss ThruckmortoD.
Our colleagues have asked Us why we
did not bring Mrs. Grant. who is now living.
t. testify about The dinner at Judge Roit's
house. Does any one suppose if we were to
summon her and she should testify that
Mrs. Sherman was called frt m the parfor
on the night OF that dinner that the attOr-
neys Of the other side would permit her to
say why Mrs. Sherman went cut? Most
assuredIy they would not"
A SPICY CoLLOQUY.
I'VE will be glad to let you ask any such
questicns you please on that line" inter
posed Mr.. Wor,hington.
Yes" said Major Butterworth scorn-
fully. ''Will you permit me to read a
letter here on this very subject"
NO, sir" answered Mr.. Worthington.
warmly. I'VE Will consent to the reading of
no papers now
The subject Of revocation by new will
ad
Of revocation. Among all his friends. why
did not some witness come forward and say
he or she signed that Will. II there was
another VIII, 1t was probable that at
least one a'tcstor would come forward and
claim the S45 .OG0 that Washington Holt
was ready To give for the production OF it.
Arc we to make a well for Joseph Holt?
Are they to breakit? Or is his own work
to stand? These People have worked fcr
weeks to break a home and heart"
If Miss ThrLckthorton was the furger OF
the will. why did she not give all the
property to herself? If Luke Deviin wrote
il. why did he not make himself bene
ficiary?
The hour of 3.15 O'Clock had arrived.
Major Butterworth was hardly through.
In fact, he was on the opening periods of
his peroration. 1t has been a battle of for
malities. No quarter was asked or given
MT W NtTtUluPtOn tdlieu attention 10 tne
hour. and the court said the speaker must
stop.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S CHARGE.
Judge Bradley began his charge to the
jury at 800 o'clock AMI was an hour and
two minutes in its delivery He told the
jurors that they were no doubt delighted
that this period of the trial had arrived.
The same feeling of relief was shared by
counsel, principles and court.
1t was a source OF congratuiation that
no juror had been kept away single
day by any indispostion. Likewise with
counsel and court. The long continuance
OF the case had been caused entirely by
the numerous points OF circumstantial
evidence that needed elucidation 1t wes
a privilege the Jury should be rather proud
of, however, that they were allowed to
sit in case so remarkable in its features
and distinguished by such remarkable coun-
sci.
The court did not remember a case since
he had been on the bench that had been
so remarkable in both these points The
facts OF the case were before the jury and
they had only to be advised OF the law.
Four issues were sent up by tile orphans
court. An answer OF yes or mo- must
be returned on the first three. A different
answer IN ght he returned on the fourth.
hSt. was tut pdPVi anu DCdT-
ing date of February Z, 1873. executed by
Judge Holt. Second, Was fraud prac-
ticed? Third. Was there undue in flu
ence? Fourth. Was it revoked?
The first and fourth questions though,
were really the only ones the Jury had to
deal with. They must necessarily say
mo- to the second and third inrerroga-
tories. and the court Sd directed them
DID HE WRITE 1T?
The simple question OF tte execution is
raised by the first issue. If the paper was
written and signed by Judge Holt il mat
ters not what was in it. That was not for
the Jury to decide. The controversy hinged
merely on he question did he write an sign
it. Unfortunately the attesting witnesses
are dead. Ifit were known where tie will
came from it would doubtless enighteu he
situation.
The difficulty Is that this paper was de-
posted in the mail by some person who is
so recreant to his duty that he does not come
forward and acknowledge it. There was
no direct testimony on that question
Both sides had advanced theories, support
ell by circunstantial evidence.
Judge Bradley read the prayers he had
granted. 1t was incumbent upon the pro-
poneutS or caveatees of the will to prove
that it was genuine.
The jury must disreg lrd the testimony OF
any witness WHO based his opinion on
Judge Hollis writing of the Will, on facts
outside the handwriting itself.
If the jury believed Judge Holt did not
execute the paper their answer to the first
question should he mo" That would he
the disposition of the whole thing. An
answer in the affirmative would direct
attention to the fourth issue.
The first branch of the question was: Did
Joseph Holt revoke the will by tearing.