The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1897-02-06

wished him to get some silver money ont
I of pouch ana put it into a smaller
! pocket book, and to examine her tax re-
ceipts for her. Not wishing to be inter-
rupted, he bolted the door, separated the
money for her, and made the search and
found the receipt for her. He also COM
pared her tax receipts for the ten years
past. He testified without equivocation
thi the subject OF her will was not even
mentioned that day. The theory OF the
plaintiff vanished in face of the positive
and uncontrad' 'cted evidence of defendant.
that he did not leave the house the even.
ing he examined the tax recei pts, and did
not come back and find his mother great
ly excited. Neither does the testimony
sustain the charge that defendant SAID to
his mother al that time he would throw
himself under the train if she did not per-
nit him to stay with her. The only ex-
preston of this character was made by
him long after the will was executed, and
was an expression OF his anguish that his
mother should depend upon an old idiotic
egro nurse, and his unwilllngnesS To
leave under such circumstances. The
transposition of this evidence, while
skillful, is wholly misleading.
The surmises OF plaintiff that influence
was eXarted on that occasion uufortun-
ately for her, are baseless so TAR evidence
was adduced TO sustain them. They show
only an opportunity aud a motive, but
that is all. As we have seen, opportunity
and motive are not enough. IL must be
shown that the undue influence was
eXerted. The claims of plaintiff are con- |
Trajectory. On The one hand she endsaV- |
ors To show defendant preiud ced his !
mother against her, and yet shows that !
her mother always, even to the last, was
affectIonate to ber, and that she rendered !
her mother the most loving services in |
her last illness. Excluding the mass of !
incompetent and irrelevant testimony of /
quaTrels between plaintiff aud defendant |
when children; OF wholly incompetent |
Gfa Of Siafa
years before the will was executed; the |
declarations OF Mrs. Catron that she held !
her property in trust for the benefit of /
her children; the controversies between /
plaintiff and defendant, long after the !
execution of the will and without the !
knowledge of their mother; the incompe-
tent opinions of Lock Terhune, Elijah !
N9er aud others; the fact that defendent
in the last days OF his mothers illness, at
her request, carried her keys to her bureau
drawers; the barteriug for the cemetery
lot; evidence that plaintiff had never been
unkind to her brother; the evidence as to
defendant administering the medicine TO
his moth er in her last illness, all irrele-
want and inadmissible on this issue, we
have the simple fact that a perfectly sane
mother has Disseminated against her
daughter aud given her son the great oulK
of her estate, which was reasonably worth
$50, 900, and bequeathing to her daughter
only the usufruct of 5000, during her
life, remainder to her children. 1t is
urged that this is an unjust and unreR-
sonable will. To most minds it uoes
appear so, and doubtless few jurors could
be found who would not so say by the'r
verdicts. But the law which governs
both courts and Jurors, secures to every
citizen OF sound mind and lawful age the
privilege of making will. The essential
purpose of the statute of wills is that the
testator may make Determinations. Il
equality of distribution had been the
policy of the lawmakers, they shouia