Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1899-04-01

showed the issue which the jury had
heen called upon 10 decide, and pro-
ceeded to show the evidence which had
been brought to rebut it-that Of ply
sicians, subscribing witnesses, personal
friends and others. No subscribing
witness would come in court and testi-
fy that he had attested the will OF
person of unsound mind. He re-
ferred to cases similar to the
one at issue, in which wills had been
declared valid by the Court of Appeals
where there was by no means as much
evidence to substantiate them es there
was in that of Mrs. Eliza R. Danger
field. He appealed to the jury that
there could be no doubt of the fact that
the testatrix was woman of strong
mind, and, apart from a few lapses OF
memory, continued to be up to the
time of her demise. Mr.. Johnson then
reviewed most of the evidence which
had been adduced by the contestants
and contostees, and argued forcibly to
refute all which had been brought
against the validity of the will. The
idea had never entered into the mind OF
mortal man or woman up to 1896 that
the testatrix's mental powers were i'm
paired, and cited the evidence of DR..
Klipstein, Judge Norton, Mr.. J. T.
Burke and others who had had the
best opportunities of observing and
studying the condition of the deceased
to dispel such a notion. The speaker
wildly portrayed the executive ability
of Mrs. Daingerfeld in managing her
household affairs, she requiring the
doctor to make report to her in cases of
sickness in the family. Mr.. Johnson
cited the Indignation manifested by
witnesses who had been on the stand at
the bare suggestion of Mrs. danger.
fields mind having been impaired, ana
called the attention of the jury to the
clear and forcible expression of the de
ceased in the letters to her granddaugh-
ter, Mrs. Carter They showed per
feet clearness of mind, and one who
knew all that was going on around heI
and which evinced affection for her
granddaughter and earnest solicitude
for the prospective great-grand-child, OF
| which she was so proud, and OF the
young woman who was approaching
maternity. The speaker then proceed
ed TO snow what constituted testamenta-
ry capacity and argued that the fact that
a tesIator did not know the value or
extent of his estate did not render him
incapable OF making will. He had
formulated such an instrument himself,
but did not know all he possessed. He
owned property the value of which he
had no idea. Mr.. Johnson cited case
which came before the Court of APP
peals in which will was declared valid
where the testator had been bed
ridden by paralysis and was unable
to speak when he made the will.
Mr.. Johnson then proceeded to review
the evidence given by the parties OH
the other side, and be said it was re-
markable fact that none put on the
stand had positively testified that the
testatrix was not of sound mind when
she made her will. He took each part
of the evidence which was intended to
produce the impression that Mrs. Dain-
gerfield was not of testamentary capa-
city and rebutted it by many similar
things in the lives of others who had
committed the same acts-losing keys,
money and becoming forgetful-yet
! we're never considered OF impaired
mind. He then argued forcibly against
the suggestion OF undue influence being
brought to bear upon the mind of the
testatrix. The speaker subsequently
dwelt for some time upon the alleged
aversion formed by Mrs. Daingertield
for her daughter-in-lew, Mrs. Virginia.
No one had right to question q per-
sons likes or dislikes. We all have
them, and often we are at loss to eX-
plain them. There was one thing, how
ever, that could not be shown-that
the teststrix was hypocrtical. She
had refused to allow the regular morn
ing kiss, refusing to act { part to which
her heart did not respond. The de-
ceased, he urged knew all about her es-
tate and reviewed most Of her business
she transacted and her familiarity with
it during the few years previous to Ter
death.
The hour OF II was now striking and
attention was called to the fact that
the court would now take recess I'M
til l O'Clock.
The court reconvened at the appoint
| ed horr-one o'clock, and Mr.. Johnson
resumed his argument. He gave da-
tailed statement concerning property in
Baltimore belonging to the deceased.
| He spoke earnestly in refutation of un-
| due influence which it had been alleged
the testatrix had been subjected to.
The deceased had been so careful in
the disposition of her estate that she
had ignored her own son Reverdy and
had made Mr. J. Z. Burke manager of
her affairs. She had no confidence in
Reverdy's ability from the fact that his
| ventures had invariably miscarred. He
then made comparisons of the values OF
the respective estate of Henry and
| Reverdy Daingerfeld, in which there
was difference of So 400 in favor Of
the latter. There wera four bread win.
ners in Henry family; but one in that
of the other. If the will were broken
there would be difference of over $780,
900 in favor of Henry's widow and
children. Mr.. Johnson then went to
show why Mrs. DaingerGeld made
new will, which Was IN accordance with
the then existing condition of affairs
Reverdy having lost all his personal
property, while Henry had re-
tained his. Her objection was rational
to provide for those unproyided for
Mr.. S. G. Brent, one Of the counsel
for Mrs. Virginia Daingerfeld, after
wards addressed the jury. He would,
ne said, in his argument ignore the un-
pleasant features brought out ia the
evidence in the case ar '.,r BRENT after