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

ing Instructions when lney desired
showed be delivered to the jury. The
proceedings had become monotonous to
many not interested in the case, and
the crowd which had been present at
all other stages of the trial showed
marked diminution.
Court resumed its session at $40
o'clock, instead of 8, as bad been an
pounced when the recess was taken,
shortly after twelve o'clock.
Counsel on both sides appeared with
their suggestions as to how the jury
should be charged. The counsel for
Mrs. Virginia Daingerfeld ct ais. pre-
sented twenty. seven instructions to the
court and those for Mrs. Effie DANGER
field ct ais eleven, which they desired
would be adopted in the charge to the
jury. They were read separate
ly and those agreed upon by
counsel for both sides were
handed to the Judge. Later o recess
was taken until seven o'clock when it
was said the court would deliver its in
structions to the jury and argument on
the case would begin.
Spectators began to arrive at haif-past
six o'clock, and by the time the court
reconvened dense crowd was present.
Every available inch of space was
utilized long before the court was call
ed 10 order. People were standing on
benches, sitting upon the backs OF each
others chairs, the windows were full
and without the bar sea of heads was
to be seen packed as closely as matches
in box. The females OF the family
connected with the issue were present
and number of their friends.
The court was called to order at five
minutes past S o'clock, when Judge
Nicol announced that having received
instructions from counsel at late hour
in the afternoon it had been impossible
for the court to prepare the final in-
structions to thejury at the hour desig-
uated.
Later Mr.. Robert Elliott took the
stand. He testified that the properly
of the late Rsverdy Daingerfield in acre
Alexandria county was worth $40 an
and the square of ground in this city
s., 600 These figures were consider
ably in excess of those mentioned by
Mr.. J. I. Burke in his testimony.
The court then took q recess until
$50 o'clock this morning, and the many
who had gathered to hear the argu
ments left
Long before the doors were open this
morning a crowd had gathered who
were anxious for admission, and by
half-past nine o'clock, the hour fixed
for the reconyening of the court the
room was we'll filed. There was the
usual scramble for the most available
seats and the best points of observation.
Nearly all the parties to the suit, male
and female, were present, including a
number of their friends.
1t was twenty minutes to ten o'clock
when the Judge reached the bench, and
by that time the room had become q
veritable bee hive.
The proceedings brought many boys
to the scene.
After the reading of the minutes of
yesterdays proceedings and the calling
of the roll of jurors, the judge an
nounced that there would be o recess
from u to 1 o'clock today. He then
read the instructions to the jury, as
they had been finally determined.
They were as follows-summarized.
For the plaintiff in issue-Mrs. Efiie
DaingerfeId.
/. The court instructs the jury that
every person possessing testamentary
capacity is entitled, under the laws,
to make will, and to dispose Of his
| property as he pleases, and to discrimi-
nate between next of kin as he may
| choose.
2. That every person is of testiment
airy capacity who is capable OF know
ing and understanding the nature OF
the business be is engaged in, and OF
the elements of which the will is COM
posed, and the disposition OF his prop
erty as therein provided for.
3. That neither sickness, old age,
or impaired intellect are sufficient to
render void the provisions of said
paper, if the jury believe from the evi.
dence that the testatrix, at the time of
executing the said will, was capable
of recollecting what property she was
about to dispose of.
4. That undue influence (Which IS
species of fraud) must not be presumed,
| but must be clearly and strictly proved,
and the burden of proving it rests on
| him who alleges it.
s. If the jury believe from the evil
dence that Eliza B. Daingerfeld, at the
time she executed the will in
controversy, had sufficient under.
standing to clearly comprehend
the nature of the business, and
consented freely to the same; that
no undue influence VS. used TO bring 1t
about. then the validity of salG VIII
cannot be impeaohed, as the propriety
of such disposition is not to Go decided
by them, but her capacity to make it.
6. That the declaration contained IN
the will that the contestants, who 90
not participate equally with the widow
and children of her other deceased son,
are comfortably provided for, must
have great weight with them in de-
termining that her will was her free
and voluntary act.
7. If the jury believe from the evil
dence that Eliza L. Daingeriield's dis
position of her estate by the will Is in
accord with her previous declarations
and affections, then the court instructs
them that this is itself persuasive evil
dence of testamentary capacity.
s. That discrimination between next
of kin of the same degree, or the entire
exclusion of part or all of them, does
not authorize an inference that such
discrimination was the result OF undue
influence.