Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-06-26
ion. The difficulty is that this paper was

ton. The difficulty ID that this paper was
deposited in the mail by some person who.
for some fraudulent reason Of his own.
not come forward and indicate that it. was
SO deposited, Who that person Ia there is
no direct evidence in this case. Who that
person may be. it Is claimed by counsel for
In this case. Who that person Is you may
be able to determine. measuring these cir
cumstances by your experience as men,
ard understanding the motives which ordi-
narily influence them. And If you do reach
the conclusion as to who in all probability
sent this paper to the Office of the register
OF Wills. you will probably have in your
hands the key to the situation"
The court then referred to the prayers
which he had granted to both sides, most
OF them referring to the revocation issue,
and In this connection the court instructed
tnem: Your inquiry as to this question
must be addressed to the circumstances in
evidence: If these circumstances show you
ihat this paper was mutilated. torn or
burned by Judge Holt with the intention to
revoke It, then your answer to this inquiry
should be yes If he executed it as q
sealed instrument and he subsequently tore
on that SEAL that act would be sufficient
TO accomplish the fact Of revocation. If
you reach the conclusion that 1t has been
revoked by later will containing incon-
sistent provisions which do not cover the
entire estate, then you should indicate by
your answer to what extent this incon-
SASsSAASy ooSSs
Probable Future Proceedings.
For all practical purposes the verdict
leaves the famous mystery as far from a
solution as it was before the trial began.
The question as to who sent the will to the
registers office has not been settled and
In all human probability never will be un-
less the sender chooses to disclose his OF
her own identity. On the theory Of forgery
1t is, OF course, possible to make q pretty
good guess, but If that theory is the cor
rect one, and the jury have said that it is
then 1t Is almost certain that Judge Holt
would have left will. He was not the
sort Of man to die without providing for
the distribution of his property in accord
ance with his wishes, but If he did make q
Will the question naturally arises as to
what became of 1t. One theory is that dur
Ing the latter years of his life, when he
was all but blind, he may have DESTROYED
1t himself by mistake, mistaking it for a
PAPER of little or value.
nat the verdict In the case does not close
the litigation over the estate of Judge Holt
Is a foregone conclusion. The caveatees
have four days within which to file a mo-
ton for new trial. 1t is safe to say that
Judge Bradley will overrule the motion
Then the lawyers for the caveators, the
helrs-at-law, will go before the Orphans
Court to object to the probating of the will
on the strength of this decision, and to ask
mat the administrator be directed to pro-
ceed with the distribution Of the estate
4hls Will be granted and it will then be
incumbent upon the caveatees to take the
case to the Court of Appeals on a bill of
exceptions. Throughout the trial of the
case the lawyers for the beneficiaries under
the will noted an exception to about every
thing they could in the testimony and in
the judges charge. A decision from the
court OF Appeals cannot be obtained be-
fore next October, and should # he in
favor of the caveatees the case would be
sent down for a new trial. Should the case
go against them it would be in their power
10 appeal to the Supreme Court. 1t is only
sufficient money or are willing to expend IL
in further contests, ~