Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1899-06-29
Windsor County Court.

The contested Segur will case occupied
the time OF the court all OF last week.
| The will IN question was written by w.
b. &. Stickney at Bethel in the summer OF
1885, and was executed there at the resi-
dence OF Mr.. Dyke. Mrs. Ellen b. Segur
Yves sick at the time and was at Bethel
under the care of DIR. l.. NJ. Greene of that
place. The will provided that the proper
ty should 90 to Joseph g. Sargent on trust
| for Willard y. Segur, who was to have the
proceeds OF the property as invested, but
not to have the principal. But II his wife
died, or IL he became single by operation
of law-if he got rid OF his wife In other
words-then he was to have all the prop.
erty. The reason for making the will as
il was made was that Mrs. Segur thong hit
and believed her son Incorporate and his
wife addicted to drink also, and that the
wife had bad influence over her hus-
band, son OF the deceased Mrs. Segur
The will was made about two months be-
fore she died, but she had several months
before that time made will in which she
left all the property out and out to her
son. This disposition would have been
in accord with her intentions as expressed
all her widowed life, until just before she
made a second Will. The property had
been her husbands and after his death
had never been divided. IL amounted TO
about g, 700, some a 900 OF which was the
legal property OF the son. II was never
paid to him, but kept intact and managed
by the mother, who furnished her son
with good school and college education
and also course at Dartmouth Medical
college, fitting him for professional life
as a doctor.
1t was claimed by the contestant that
the disposition OF the property in the
changed will indicated want OF mental
capacity and undue influences. Contes-
tant showed that the deceased had been
sufferer from some lung trouble and
wasting of one of her breasts for nearly
twenty years. Testimony was introduced
as to the eccentric character of the de-
ceased, but in the outset proponents in
troduced several witnesses whose testi
mony tended to snow that deceased. at
the time OF making and executing OF the
will, was OF sound and disposing mind
and memory. Contestant claimed that
some persons had been at WORK poisoning
the mind OF the mother against the son
ana his wife, and that the will was the
result of undue influence. Proponents
introduced testimony tending to show
that the son and his wife were intemperate
but this was denied by contestant, and IL 1
was claimed that proponents evidence /
was insufficient to establish such a fact.
that IT did not exist and was delusion OF I
he mother, or that she had been made by 4
falsehoods to believe 1t to be true The 1
will was contested as claimed by confess
tant not so much to change the course of 1
the receipt OF the property, but to re.
move the stigma on himself and wife mt
On record IL the will should be sustained
The only difference IL the will should
stand or fall being whether he receive the
property all at once or the Income from
i annually throughout his life.
AT the last June term OF court the will
! as upheld, but his honor Judge-now II.
J. senator-Jonathan Ross made a little
UP IN his charge to the jury and the SUI
1rsme court gave a reversal
AT the present trial the jury found in
avor OF the plaintiff, sustaining the will
This is the same verdict as was given q
iear ago. There are no exceptions in the
'ase and this trial is a finality
FOR the proponents appeared s. K. Pin
,tickney.
For the contestant VIM. E. johnson and
Nm. Batchelder.
Two state cases were disposed of as fol-
ows;- ~ 1
State VS.. James MeGrain, charged with
ape A nolle pros. was entered because
ne girl declined to come up to the scratch
state vs.. cap Woodward of Bridge.
Eater. zap went on a bal and Vas
ound in it. He pleaded guilty To sdronES ,
no was fined the usual five dollars ana ,
osts. anu
warren F. Taylor VS.. Alonzo T. Hpb- !
ard, a case from Plymouth, was repleyin !
or morse The case was tried Monday 1
iternoon, but came to a quick close after 4
l Ialnt'u nad put In his side. He had not |
noWn title to or possession of the horse | 4
no verdict was ordered for defendant !
~ enc cent damages and costs, w w =
tlckney for defendant; @. r. Davis for !
state vs.. Fred Austin now on trial. "