Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-05-02
DISTRICT SUPREME COURT
Substitute for Senate Bill Relating to
Jurisdiction.
Favored by the Commissioners and
Most of the Local Justices-Cases
of Contested Wills.

The House District committee has re-
ported a substitute for Senate bill 1910, re-
lating to the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia in certain
cases.
Representative Jenkins of Wisconsin has
written report on the bill, in which he
says:
COPIES of these several bills have been
submitted to all of the judges in the Dis
trict presiding over courts of record, and
to the Commissioners of the District; and,
after hearing from the learned judges of
the District Of Columbia and from the bar
Of the District, the committee recommend
for passage the substitute for this bill. 1t
is designed to remedy an anomalous con-
dition of affairs existing in the laws of the
District of Columbia inherited from the
state of Maryland almost 100 years ago.
In Cnse of Contested Wills.
"The most pressing evil which requires
remedy is the following: A man dies in
the District Of Columbia owning both per-
soral and real estate. His will is pre-
scented for probate and record in the SUI
preme Court of the District of Columbia
holding a special term for orphans court
business. His children or other next of
kin file a caveat to this will, alleging want
of testamentary capacity on the part of the
cue influence in the obtaining of this will.
Issues are thereupon made up and sent for
trial before judge and jury at special
term Of the same court sitting as a cir
cult court. The verdict, we will suppose,
finds all these Issues in favor Of the will.
This verdict is sent back to the special
term for orphans court business and a
Judgment is there entered allowing probate
to the will This judgment is final, pro-
vided no appeal be taken, with respect to
the personal estate of the testator. But
the same persons who had procured the
issues, and VINO are absolutely bound by
the verdict and judgment entered upon
them, file declaration in ejectment in the
same court as heirs at law of the testator.
Upon a trial of this ejectment they as
sail the same will upon the same issues
and we will suppose that a verdict is
rendered against The will. Here we have
two absolutely contradictory verdicts upon
Another great evil, constituting a con-
slant menace to the safety of real estate
transactions. is TINS: Under existing law
the will of a testator may be assailed in
an ejectme mt SUIT at any time within TWEEN
ty years, and Uncertain cases of disability
under the statute of limitations still
longer period Is. allowed.
"a further object Of the proposed legisla-
| ton is to give to the Supreme Court of the
District of Colunabia holding special term
| for orphans court business plenary juris-
diction for the administration of both the
personal and real estate of the decedsnt. A
| died Is this: There are very many contests
| over wills in the District of Columbia I'm
| der the law jury trials in such cases have
precedence over all other business. In con-
| sequence of this, suitors on the common
| law side Of the court are delayed indefinite
/ ly, and to their very great injury, while the
juries are occupied In determining aues-
| tons involving the validity of Wills The
proposed legislation gives the special term
sitting for orphans court business jury.
| so that the sending of issues and the con-
sequent blocking up of the business of the
Circuit Court will no longer be necessary.
Justices and Commissioners Approve.
1.-THE proposed legislation, being "a substi-
tute bill prepared by committee of the
| Bar Association Of the District Of Column
| bia has been submitted to and carefully
considered by the Court Of Appeals and the
Supreme Court of the District. and also by
| the District Commissioners. 1t has the
unanimous approval of the three judges Of
the Court of Appeals. OF the six judges Of
| the Supreme Court Of the District Of CO.
lumbia five approve 1t unqualifiedly. The
Commissioners Of the District of Column