Evening star., 1897-03-02
THE VAN RIswICk WILL.
Waiting This Afternoon for the jury,
Verdict.

verdict.
The question of the validity of the will
of the late Mrs. Mary Van Rfswick was
given to the jury for determination by
Judge McComas shortly after II o'clock
this morning, and at 1:15 the jury retired
to their room to deliberate on their YER
dict.
The concluding arguments in the case
"Ne made yesterday, the first day of the
seventh week Of the trial, by Mr. Jere NJ.
Wilson. on behalf of Mr.. Wilton j. Lam
bert, who is defending his grandmother $
Will, and by Mr.. A S. Worthfngton, for
Mrs. Martina Carr, who charges that the
instrument was procured by undue inliu-
ence exercised upon her mother by Mr.
Lambert or by his parents. Mr.. Worth
ington concluded late yesterday afternoon.
when Judge McComas adjourned the trial
until this morning. announcing that he
would charge the jury today.
In fnstructlng the jury this morning as
to the law and evidence, Judge McComas
did so In the presence of a crowded court
room, an unusually large number of mem
bers Of the bar being present. The judges
charge was a very elaborate and carefully
prepared one, and was referred to by those
members of the bar who heard it as being
one OF the ableSt ever delivered in a Dis
trict court.
"S ShuESC ~ the OuEys
Judge McComas told the jury that mod
crate or honest persuasion exercised upon
testator will not void his will under a
charge of undue influence. An influence
due to love or affectionate regard is not
undue influence, for undue influence, he
explained, means such force or coercion as
prevents or destroys the free agency of the
testator.
Undue influence has been exercised, the
judge further explained. when The DISPOSE
ton of the estate is that OF some other
person or persons, and not that of the tes-
tator. That is, Wien the instrument does
not express the intention or purpose of the
testator, but that of some other person or
persons. The judge instructed the jury
that where undue influence is charged sas
in the present case. the burden of proof
Is on the party making the charge, Mrs.
Carr in the present instance, and the
charge must be sustained by fair pre-
pCEderance of evidence.
Mere suspicion or the existence of an
opportunity to exercise undue influence is
not sufficient TO sustain such charge and
while it would be right fer the jury 10 con-
slider the fact that Mrs. Van Riswick had
two years in which to revoke her will and
did not. 1t would also be proper for them
10 consider the testimony offered by Mrs
Carr to show that the will remained in
the custody of Mr.. Lambert during that
time. The judge told the jury that they
had TO right to set the will aside merely
because 1t might not accord with their
ideas of what is right. Nor were they au-
thsrized to reject it because they might
think it an unreasonable one. For If a
court or jury should condemn a will for
such a reason. the right of a man or wo-
man to make will would be taken from
them, and the will Of the court or iury
would be substituted for that Of the testa-
tor. In conclusion, the Judg. urged the
jury to take their own time in deciding
the question, and not allow personal con.
venience or passing incidents of the day
to interrupt or curtail their deliberations.