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

brought out in the evidence, and called
attention to tne fact that, contrary to
general custom, Judge Norton, who
had prepared the instrument, never
read it to the testatrix, and there was
no evidence to show that she knew its
contents. The speaker then made q
spirited attack on the evidence, in the
shape of dispositions, &C., which had
come from Baltimore. Mr.. J. T. Burke,
it will be remembered, had stated that
the testatrix ever had her own way in
her household matters; in her financial
affairs he had his way-all OF which
tended to show that the deceased was
not of testamentary capacity. MIR.
Brent in referring to undue influence
said that was always eXerted IN Sc
cret; circumstances would shOW such
thing without direct evidence.
There was, the speaker said, evidence
TO show that the deceased had been
subject to undue influence in prepare
ton of her will, and he quoted evil
dence which he believed substsDtiated
the assertion, referring to the different
Wills which deceased had made, to-
gether with the changes in their pro.
visions. The deceased had two daugh-
ters-in .law-one Mrs. Virginia, lady
of unblemished character, who had
been attentive and dutiful to the tesla
trix, to whom the mother in-law, for
some unaccountable reason, had formed
terrible dislike. 1t was the work of
some diaholical schemer, of whom the
Jury must be the judge, in order that
certain ones could be the bene6ciaries
by her will Mr.. Richard Mitchell, he
said, had testified to noticing marked
change in the condition of the deceased
whom the witness had said was just
woman, which showed that the tesla.
trix must have been under some undue
influence which caused her to make
such All unnatural will. Mr.. Brent
went on to refer to the letters from the
deceased which had been received by
Mrs. Carter and produced in court. He
believed the letters were penned by
Mrs. Daingerfeld but that they were
inspired by the same arch tiend who
mad been behind all the scenes.
Otherwise would daughter Of Rever-
dy johnson, who had lived in re
fined atmosphere all her life, allowed
her grand. daughter Lottie TO allude to
her aunt Jennie in such disrespectful
manner as to say "she is as impudent as
a brass monkey" If Mrs Daingeriield
could not give her daughter-in-
Elite $50 to buy dress lest she
might spend it in stocks, it would seem
strange that she would subsequently
entrust her with her entire income of
81 900 year. All these things showed
undue influence and lack Of tesla
mentary capacity. Mr.. Brent closed in
n pathetic manner to little Katherine,
the favorite grandchild of the deceased.
Mr.. Moore followed. He said the
gentlemen of the jury understood the
evidence in the case as we'll as he, and
he would be almost contented to leave
the case with them without argu.
ment, as he was satisfied they were all
tired. Ia his remarks, however, he
would make no allusious to parties who
had not been on the stand; all that was
irrelevant. The case must be decided
according to what evidence has been
adduced. What other people could
have testified to was now out of the
arena. Mr.. Moore spoke of the Sc
cluded life led by the testatrix, and the
fact that there never was will case in
the courts of Alexandria where
there was so little known outside of the
bare evidence adduced on the stand.
The pole star to which the jury should
look, was Did the testatrix nave proper
comprehension to make a will in the
face of tbs facts which have been
brought out in the csse9 He cited 10
detail her previous wills. Mr.. John
son in MS remarks had said that one of
the speakers witnesses Henry Dain-
gerGedl was practically an idiot and
unworthy OF belief. Mr.. Moore (snd
SO had MIR. BrenD urged that Mr.. Dain-
gerfeld was one of the nest intelligent
and trustworthy witnesses vino had
been put or thesiand, and his evidence
haG. been substantieted by other wit
nesses. He had given Mr.. Johnson
quiG pro quo in the cross.
examination, and this doubtless
brought forth the observation, MIR.
Moore then went over the history
Of the will and called the attention of
the jury TO the fact that there was no
evidence TO show that the will was never
read to the testatrix ard there was
strong inference that she never read it
herself. A horrible precedent would
be set if the jury upheld will with
such history. Moreover, Mr.. J. T.
Burke had stated that he had put the
executives income into twelve equal
parts and told her if she exceeded in
Der expenditures during the month one
twelfth Of her annual income, she
would be encroaching upon her prinoi-
pal. This. he said, he had never done
for any other client. Did this argue
that the deceased had clear idea of
business whom she had to be admonish.
ed as child? Did such q per-
son show te5tamentary capacity ? /
The fact was glazing that neither |
Mrs. Daingerfeld's lawyer nor banker |
knew of the extent OF she estate nor |
did the tostatfix; as it had been ap-
proximated at about onne-half of its &C.
tual value. Mr.. Moore then went on
to show the terrible strain on the tesla. |
trix's mind during the past few years of /
her life, and while the side he repre- |
sented did not attempt 10 show the de.
ceased was crazy they did believe
tha5 under all circumstances in the |
case she was incapable of making a
will. and one fact that went far to show
that she was irresponsible was |
that she purposed giving away !,
things which never belonged 10 Ter. |
Further on the speaker referred to the |
nrn.nd;na tho toatnar;.. hod a.a4o=.a:-.l L