Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-05-04

upon said Joseph Holt by any person or
persons?
Was the execution of said paper writ
ing procured by the undue influence of any
person or persons?
IF the said paper writing was executed
by the said Joseph Holt as his last will
and testament, has the same been revoked
by the teStator?'
Witnesses were introduced by one side to
prove that the signatures of the witnesses
to the will were genuine, while the other
side put witnesses on the stand whose tes-
| timony was to the contrary.
No evidence having been introduced in
support of the second and third issues, re-
latingf to the procurement of the execution
of the will by fraud and undue influence,
the court instructed the jury to return the
verdict answering No" to the inquiry
whether the will was executed by Joseph
Holt. To the fourth question, whether
Joseph Holt had revoked the will, if in fact
executed, the jury answered: No, because
! it was not executed"
A Leading Question.
The leading question in the case arose on
| the several assignments of error relating to
the admission of evidence tending to show
| the relations of the testator after the date
| of the will with his next of kin, and the
| family of one of the legatees, his senti-
| ments and feelings toward them and his
| Intentions in respect to provisions for them
| in the disposition of his estate.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals is
/ divided into six differ ent considerations OF
the rulings Of the lower court each Of
| which is reviewed extensively, and many
| similar rulings cited.
| In the second consideration the court
says: III seems to be quite clear, both on
| principle and authority, that the evidence.
| Including the declarations of the testator,
| tending to show, after the date of the will
renewed ard increased affection for his
of L. Sgra m frD
| the family of one of the lesatees, and an
| independent provision for the remaining
| legatee, for whom his affection remained
undated, was competent as tending to
| maintain the issue of revocation. If the
will had been fot nd among the papers OF
| the teslator, uImutilated. the evidence
! would clearly have been Incompetent and
prove revocation as an independent TACT.
Testimony as to Signatures.
During the trial the cavea tors introduced
| a witness. John b. Randolph, who testified
| that he had been employed for more than
| thirty years in the office of the Secretary
| of War. during which time U. S. Grant
| and w. 7. Sherman had respectively acted
as Secretary of War, and while the latter
had been general of the army. During this
service he had become familiar with their
signatures, and had recently re-examined
Il EN-. In his opinion, neither signature at
tached tc the will was genuine. The court
excluded certain evidence offered by the
caveatees to contradict Randolph on the
| objection of the caveators that it was no:
competent rebuttal. On this point the
Court of Appeals, in concluding its opinion,
| said:
whilst inclined to the opinion that the
| discretion of the court might well have
| been literally exercised in favor of the adj
| NJ .sson of this evidence. we do not think
| that its exclusion, considering, too, the in
direct and slight contradiction between it
| and the evidence OF Randolph, was an error
| for which judgment should be reversed.