The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-24
AFTERNOON SESSION.

AFTERNOON SESSION.
Deposition OF Mrs. George Goldthwaite-
Deponent has known Mrs. Rice for thirt,
Years, She saw Mrs Rice about juno
and noticed nothing wrong about hei
speech. and her mental condition appeared
perfectly natural. The doponent was yer,
emphatic in saying Mrs. Rice was in pos
session OF her mental faculties in theii
normal condition.
Gross Observation-Disclosures saw Mrs
Rice after May 10, 1896. peponcnt said /,
was not true that the entire right side was
raralyzedz. but said a slight affection OF
/ the right hand was notice able.
peponent here stated that she believed
I Mrs Rice WAS capable OF making will
and that the Will as published In The Post
VAS on the same line as Mrs. Rice had
told depoficnt her will would he made The
contestant objected TO the answer of de-
ponent TO the interrcsatory. the quest on
being II on June l Mrs. Rice had capacity
10 make such a viii. The ieponeut an
swered that she thought Mrs. Rice had. and
here The evidence should stop. The re-
mainder OF the answer is argumentativc
ana should be admitted. The objection
was sustained.
Please state If after the death Of Mrs
Rice you heard her mental condition dis
eussed, and what was said OF il. was an
other question. The answer made was.
i was surprised and astonished ON mo-
ton OF contestant this was stricken out
Deposition Of Mrs. S. X MoIlhenny--
Deponent has known Mrs Rice fifteen
years. and intimately five years Depousnt
saw Mrs. Rice either last dav of May or
the LIST or 2d OF June. 1896. Deponent con-
versed with Mrs. Rice and discovered no
defect In articulation, When deponeat
q ina gs..,tr.
ers which depcnent had sent 70 her May
~ and also spoke OF visit made by de-
ponent's daughter. which had been made
on May 20 Mrs Rice asked deponeut to
Write 10 friend in Galveston Deponcn;
considered Mrs. Rice pertectly sane. no.
uCed uo defect in her mental faculties.
There seemed TO be question as to The
period OF time referred to by ,Ae deponen;.
which formed the basis OF an objection by
contestant, but the objection was over
ruled.
The cross interrogatories developed that
aeponcnt saw Mrs. Rice the day after the
lGuer was taken sick and again about the
,ast Of Nav or the first Of Juue When
deNntni saw Mrs. Rice about May Is the
latter did not have the entire use Of her
'isht arm witness never saw the Will
aud never heard 1t discussed until after
Mrs. Rice died '''
me deposition OF Dr r. Rutherford was
heNt presented. but contestant moved To
SiF'Ne out the entire DEPOSITION because OF
tHe failure or refusal of Tie depnaent 10
c'NWer an Important question on cross
examination. counsel for contestant arrn-
ing mat the answer made was eyasiye Thu
question was No. II, and reals rs II NOT
E,l'F44N true that WHOM a person of Mrs
't'Ve 5 age is stricken with partial paraly-
rs thSt 'he disease as rule progresses
ana tho patient gradually becomes worse
rather than improves, particularly In m.
cases which result in death soon after me
stroke of paralysiS7"
To this the answer was made as fo,Io,s
ne scope OF this question is too wide 10
ddlnlt Of an answer"
Mr. Baker argued that the witness was
question ought to allow the srrilinc o 49,
OF all of the deposition.
NVlVnei hntcheson said Dr. Rutherford
was not being examined as an eNpert Ia
NSS ''S'uylng as 10 his actual knowledge
w inc ease In point the Illness OF Mrs
NJ Is specific disease about which
he witness Is being examined AMI ~
witness is supposed Ia answer tro,,' -. .is
hhewledse, and net give an answe- NO.,
SVccNtatiNe grounds as II he We're a., ~
INrt 'eStttying about case no had ns,.rr
,he'icaliv. 10 MN hFpo-
Mr. Garnet argued that the witness :,
-, S'ta"Eer' lie is physician Of this
WV Is lcsatec undcr this viii IN mo
eNteNt OF $4,000. He is supposed "a hn
phNsioian who can answer such oncs,ion
ana h's testimony should be held uithi,
'h' strict letter Of the law lis he hos
any tho less or an expert because tho
,m'nss vSSrred under his own observation
and were not repeated 10 hin, hvro,ha,
ioaily. He is physician 10 ,,n ., 80
disease ana 10 sustain a sss o0O beo,,ss,
made 10 him Tie answers aud saws ~
h'ce was suffering with some kind NJ a
,'erehro- spinal etfuSlon and was then in
htr right mind. Yet he declines 10 anso,s.
IS to the probable progress OF that dis
Nse, ana think We should expect an
answer. We have the deposition Of Mr.
Had'ey. who states that Miss CamnNeIl
SAID that the day after Mrs Rice reached
Naukesha she was ravine maniac. Coun-
sci insisted that the witness occupvipg tho
POSITION Of sn eNper, and a beneficiary
under the VIII. the obligation TO the tos,i-
mony was proper.
nPiug An eyrert the court ssia ~, ,,.,i
monv as TO the actual knowledge OF The Wi
moss would have hearing al bar He has
confessed his inability 70 answer the oues.
ticp wy N"Ns'
Here Mi Baker interrupted the enur,
TIC witness ala no( saw ne could M,
answer nut Simply replies that the q,es-
Won Is OF too large scope IN aa,,,r =,
ar7Ner nr, Rulhol!crd IS a ~esi5sn, q.
th.s city Is et,ep IN Attendance on this
ecnr' and his testtwouv cav BE- procured
He is not nop-rcSil ont whose ;estlnonv
can he procured nv deposition only We
ask him To show whether the disease prc-
crosses, He does not answer pr Mig
CLINTON saws Il does. Or Wisrinton ssy<
thar the disease in persons OF the ago ~
Mrs, Rice is very rapid In its progress and
the taking of Of the patient Counsel waS
fair enongh to say that IL ne were me
court and the evidence could no, ~ Sc,
cured except by deposition, ne would al
MT the deposition. hut DR.. Rutherford is
here and can he had
Colonel Hutchcscn WAS surprised Re-
fore the objection was presented he asked
counsel for the contestsnt to present an.
,horities and they dseitnei They HAY,
made two speeches to my one" said Col.