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

at an end.
Plaintiff, Mrs. McFadin, only daugh-
ter of Mrs. Martha Catron, by her
attorneys, Messrs. Shewalter, Wallace
and Chilos, filed her petition in the
Lafayette county circuit court on the
30th day of October, 1891, against her
brother, the only son of said Martha
Catron, to set aside the will of Mrs.
Catron, on the grounds that Mrs. Cat
ron did not have capacity to make such
will, and that she was forced 10 make
the will by the undue influence of her
said son. BY It's provision the will
gave the interest on five Thousand dol
lars to Mrs. McFadin for life, with
remainder to her children, and gave all
the remainder of her estate, about $685.
600, to James Henry Catron.
Judge John f. Burden was retained
by the defendant, James Henry Catron,
as his attorney, and he filed answer in
SAID circuit court, denying the allega-
tions of testamentary incapacity and of
undue influence, set up in the petition.
The case was removed TO the federal
court at Kansas City Mo-, but subse-
quently was remanded by that court to
the Lafayette circuit court. The case
was then removed by change of venue
to the circuit of Saline county, Mo-,
and on the 2Srd day of February, 1892,
the first trial was begun in Saline which
lasted nine days, there being over fifty
witnesses in attendance. The jury re-
turned q verdict adverse to the will,
and the court inferred judgment setting
the will aside. The defendant, james
Henry Catron, appealed to the supreme
court, and on a hearing therein, that
court reversed the judgment of the cir
cult court and remanded the case for
new trial. The evidence taken at
the trial covered seven hundred printed
pages. The opinion was rendered by
the supreme court February IS, 1894,
and was published in this paper. 1t
may be found in the 120 Mo. 252.
After the mandate the case was again
tried in the Saline circuit court on the
10th day of September, 1894, the trial
lasting ten days, during which time
small army of witnesses were examined
for and against the will. The result
of this trial was to again annul the will
and set it aside. Mr.. Catron again
appealed to the supreme court. The
evidence taken at the trial was printed
in this office and covers one thousand
pages. The position taken by MIR.
Catron in his appeal was that all the
evidence taken at the trial failed to
show either that Martha CatrOn did
not have testamentary capacity, or that
any undue influence was exerted by
him in procuring the will, and that
hence, the verdict of the jury and the
Judgment of the circuit court was with
out evidence to support it and prayed
the court TO remove the case and estab-
lish the will. The case was argued
and submitted to the supreme court ut
the October term, 1895, and that court
took the case under advisement, and
on account of the volumInous record
which the court had to scrupulously
and closely examine under the issue
made, and other pressing duties which
commanded their attraction, the case
was not decided until February 2, 1879
on which day the court rendered the
opinion herein below set forth, revers-
ing the judgment of the circuit court,
and ordering that court TO enter judg-
ment establishing the will.
Such in brief outline is the history
of this hard fought battle which has
attracted so much public notice on
account of the high standing of the
parties, the fortune involved in the
controversy and the well known legal
ability of the attorneys.
The following IS the opinion of the
supreme court:
In the Supreme Court of Missouri,
Division No. 2, October Term, 1896.
Frances f. McFadin, respondent.
VS..
James Henry Catron, ct al.
James Henry Catron, appellant.
This is the second appeal of this
case. The decision IN the first is re-
ported in 120 Mo-, 252.
This, like the former, is an appeal
from the Judgment of the circuit court
of Saline county, whereby the probated
will eff Mrs. Martha Catron was set
aside and held for naught.
The very correct summary of the
evidence on the former appeal by Judge
Burgess comprehends the principal
facts on the present appeal, but these
have been somewhat modified and sup
plemented on the last trial and these
changes will be noted.
The learned counsel have drawn
such radically different conclusions
from the facts in the record, that it has
entailed much labor to verify the differ
ent statements.
Appellants abstract alone contains
nearly thousand pages and respon-
dents counter abstract one hundred
and sixty pages. AS the contention
upon the one hand was there was no
evideheeto sustain either of the issues,
to- W itialWant of testamentary capacity
and second that the will was procured
by fraud and undue influence of the
appellant, James ii. Catron, and on
the other, that there was ample evil
dence to sustain both, recourse was
had la the evidence at large,
and such an undertaking with the
many interruptions incident to calls of
the docket, and The hearing of extra =,
,rdinarv tUrits and criminal cauaAa haa