The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-25
AFTERNOON SESSION.

When court roconvened Judge Shaw an
nounced that he would sustain the objection
OF contestant to the deposition OF DR.. X.
Rutherford, but would override the ohjec-
tion as to the deposition of Mary Martin
and admit her testimony. The case then
proceeded. the deposition of Mary Martin
being introduced.
The deposition of Mary Martin was as fol-
lows: Deponent met Mrs. Rice at the no
tel Deponent had a room near that Of
MIS-. Rice. She met her socially and IN q
business way. Mrs. Rice always appeared
TO be in sound condition mentally. Dur
ing period of time between November is,
1855, and June 10. 1886, deponont says Mrs.
Rice appeared TO be possessed vi her mental
faculties, although at one time there was
an apparent impeachment In her speech
Deponont was housekeeper OF the Capitol
hotel from November, 1895, until October l.,
1896.
A. c. Allen WAS then sworn. / have
known Mrs. f. b. Rice II long time. | ad
yised Mrs. Rice legally for about period
OF four or five years.
Here witness Identified an envelope
which he had addressed to Mrs. Rice in the
care of somebody In New York.
The letter contained a sketch of n win.
which was addressed TO Mrs. Rice in The
manner noted at the request OF Mrs. itlce.
who said she did not want Mr.. Rice to
know about the Will. The sketch was re-
turned to me by Mrs. Rice When she
gave me the sketch she was sane.
Here the will which II is now sought to
probate was compared with the sketch of a
will prepared by Mr.. Allen in 1889. a num-
Der Of requests in the two were found sim
liar as to name. the amounts being differ
ent.
Mrs. Rice was In her right mind when she
dictated these provisions, continued the
witness Mrs. Rice stated that she did not
| want Mr. Rice to know about the will. |
did not communicate TO Mr.. Rice. 1t would
have been against her wishes to do So
During cross examination Judge Garnet
and Mr. Baker discovered something.
Judge Garnett asked that the sketch OF the
VIII prepared by Mr.. Allen be admitted in
| evidence in full. He said that the propo-
| nent offered part OF the document in evil
dencc and the contestant desired to intro
duce the Whole document to show that the
| proposed will to have been drawn nv Mr..
| Allen is as different from the will 1t is
sought to probate as the poles are differ
| ent.
The memorandum left the income from
the estate Of Mrs. T.. B. Rice to her hus-
| band. William NJ. Rice.
Colonel Hutchinson said not a particle OF
| the instrument had been offered In evil
derce, but the instrument had simply been
used as II memorandum to assist Mr.. Al
lens memory.
The court held that counsel for contestant
could do the same thing.
Judge Garnett then read the second para =
rraph of the memorandum and asked MIR.
| Allen II that provision was contemplated By
Mrs. Rice
Colonel Hutcheson objected to Judge Gar
nett using the memorandum, which Is the
property OF tho witness
The court held that Judge Garnett could
take a copy OF the will sought to be sro-
hated and take up each paragraph serlatim
and ask the witness II such provision was
contained in the memorandum.
Judge Gernttt then asked--Mr. Allen Will
YOU read the third paragraph?
Colonel Hutcheson-I object.
Judge Shawl sustain the objection.
| Judge Garne,t--How am ! to get at 1t?
Colonel Hutoieson--i don't want you TO
get at II.
considered this the most important item OF
evidence from the standpoint Of the con-
testant that has yet appeared In the case.
He asked that the instrument be filed with
the papers In the case.
There was quite a heated debate INDUCED
in by Judge Garnet and Colonel Hutchinson.
The court ruled that comparison could
he made between the two documents
The memorandum had first been shown
in ink by Mr. Allen and 1t had been altered
after that with pencil. The Huntington
heuuest had been eliminated from the
memorandum with pencil. The memoran-
dunn contained mention Of Houston
park. but contained no amount The fea-
lure OF the will which made II so attractive
10 counsel for the contestant was the pro-
vision in favor OF william NJ. Rice. who Is
not mentioned In the will now in contro-
vcrsy.
The varinua requests in the rnemoraE-
dunn were finally embodied In the record.
Those contemplated at the time the niem-