Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1897-12-09
WILL OF MICHAEL. KANE
Was Sustained, Saturday Morning, by
a Jury in the Superior Court.
CASE GIVEN TO JURY SATURDAY
And Verdict Reached in About
an Hour.
DECISION MADE ON FOURTH BALLOT

The Kane will contest continued bs-
fore Superior Court Thursday morning.
Messrs. Ball and Ward, representing
the opponents of the will Of Michael
Kane, called t, tho stand Officer Floyd,
A fired 4. Wingato, Annie Burton, James
aud Thomas Kane, the boys in whose
behalf the will is being fought, Re
cnrder of Deeds Montgomery, Patrick
Neary, Mrs, Margaret Holland, Edward
/. Holland and James ii. Kane, the
executor. Some of them testified TO
kane's mental condition and some TO
tho value Of his property.
William I. lyman, who represents
the will, then opened to the Jury. He
SAID he would show that Mr.. Kane
worked for the p, W. & I'. Railroad
Co.. for IS years; that he rosa from
lahorer to boss of lot OF men on
bridge work; that at the time be made
the will he was in his right mind and
had full capacity to make will.
James L. Smith, master carpenter OF
the p, W. g. B. railroad, testified that
Kane worked on the road, first as a
lahorer and afterwards as boss Of
gang OF men. doing all kinds of con-
struction work, one Of which was the
building of $3.50, 600 bridge nsar Bal
timors.
Adjournment was made until go.
When court reopened in the after
noon, the witnesses examined on behalf
of tho will being Levi Ruth, Frank
Carlisle, q. p. Ewes, Harry E. King,
j. l.. Deshll and Samuel T. Guyer.
Publication was ordered Thursday
sf - IN, N
divorce caRe OF Bessie W. Box rs. W.
j. Box. The return fuvors divorce.
An adjournment was made.
On Friday morning the following
witnesses were examined: John Brenr,
i. B. Frazer W. ii. Alexander, Daniel
O'Burn. james Lynn, ~. Q. Peacock,
Ellen O'Hara, Mary IS. Fox. I. N.
Holland, 4. NJ. Gormley, James Mona
phan. Michael Hession, John S. Rossell,
Mary Varley, Martin Kane, James Ii.
Kane and Mrs. Michaeh Kane.
Witnesses testified that they never
saw Michael Kane under the influence
Of liquor, and that he was in good
mental condition at the tins Of making
the will. Mr.. Rossell swore that he
observed no influence Of liquor upon
Mr.. Kans at tho time he made the will,
and considered him cohpotent to make
good and valid will.
| MIR. Hassien tsstitietA with much re-
luctance that Mr.. Kane, before 'making
| the will, said that IL his son WIS living
he would give him only 50 to make The
will good. Further tho witness said,
after signing tile will Mr.. Kane had
asked his wife: "E How do you like
that?" and she replied, 81 have moth
ing to say"
James II. Kane, tho executor, testified
that hs asked Mr., Rossell to draw up
the will at his futher's request. He
denied that he made any suggestion 10
is father concerning the contents of the
will, except that he told him to take
care of his mother
Eugene NJ. Sayers aud Edmund
Mitchell. Jr., testified to their opinion
of the value Of property of Mr.. Kane.
William Il. Lyman here rested and
there being no evidence in reply, both
sides closed,
The return of Commissioner Francis
NJ. Walker in the divorce case of Edwin
G. Mead vs.. Lydia L. Mead was opened.
1t favors the granting of the divorce.
Adjournment was made until 2.30.
Kane case was given to jury Saturday
morning. Final arguments were made
by counael Friday afternoon, and tht
charge to jury was delivered Saturday
morning by Chief Justice Charles u,
Lore. lie said that the jury must de
tSrmine whether or not the restato
was, at the time of making the will
of eound and disposing mind, and tha
evidence as to other times must b(
taken only as to guide the jury in de
termining the State Of his mind at thu
tIme he madu the will. Any evidences
ae to his liquor hahits must not afTec
the Jury, should it be shown that a
the tine OF making the will he wa
not under tine influence OF liquor ant
was in the possession Of his reasoning
faculties. Due weight must lie givei
TO the testimony Of the atte5ting wit
nesses. Anything said by Mr.. Kane
before or after making the will, con
corning the dispnaition OF his prop
erty, must not he taken US attacKin:
the validity of the will, but only t,
show his mental condition. The iurI
were not to deciuo what they woult
have done with the testator's property
hut what the teatator actually did
They were to decide whether he ha'
sufficient mind to know that he wa
disposing of his property, and to whom
he was giving it. On the question of in
fluence man might DO properly aidet
and assisted, but in order to shoy
under influence it must appear tina
such influence actually prevented hiu
from doing what he desired 20 do ant
deprived him of his free agency. Tn
Jury was out about an hour and thel
returned with a verdict, deciding tina
the paper writing 10 question was tn
last will and testament OF Michae
Kane. Judge Ball for the opponents o
the will asked that the jury he pollet
and each juror replied that he so found
It is reported that the Jury stood
to 3 in favor of tho will on the frs
ballot; 10 to ,, on the second, aud IL L
l. on the third. The fourth ballot wa
unanimous for the will.
In the case of Frank A. Mitchell vs
Richard j. Guthrie, ut al, judgmen
for plaintiff in the sum OF Sl60 wa
granted.
The case Of James a. Kelly VS.. tn
Republican Printing and Publishing
Co., was discontinued. having beel
settled. The case OF the Prudential In
, surance Co. VS.. Anna Carroll, p. b. Il.
was discontinued.
Settlement was reported in the cas-
of d. M. Osborne & Co.. IS. william
.a. Scott. Discontinuance was an
nounced in the appeal case of Allinol
, VS.. Jones.
The case of the Port Kennedy Sla
Go. VS.. Frank A. Mitchell was con
tinued, notwithstanding J. Harye
| Whiteman s1ohjection to an affidavit
! alleging the absence of material vii