Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1899-03-29

cause loss of memory. Moral SHOCK -.
series of shocks would superiDdpcs
such result, especially in old ana
Softening of the brain was the beo15
ming of senile dementia. Hostility 70
person to whom one had preyionsr,
been friendly was a symptom OF tbs
disorder. According to the Statement
made concerning the testatrix's condi.
ton, she must have had softening ~
the brain; she could have been ee.iir
influenced and made to believe she wss
being neglected. He did not think h.
testamentary capacity sufficient to max
a will at the time she formulated thar
instrument. The doctor said the cor.
ditlon could have existed for some TIM
without attracting the attention OF css.
ual acquaintance. Such was Otter ,be
case.
The court then took q recess unit. ,
o'clock.
Upon reassembling DR.. Tompk.ps
again took the stand, and the cros,-er.
animation began. He was asked If a
physician who had attended the ,e.,s.
trix for five years previous to her
death, provided he were man Of ir.
telligence, was capable of determiDir,
her mental as we'll as physical CONF.
ton. Witness replied that he nigh,
be, or should be. but implied that +.
was not positive assumption Sc
however, thought he should he cspsb-
of understanding such condition. s,
rule, witness said, physicians genera.
ly referred particular patients 10 t0o.a
of the profession who made certain
maladies subjects of special stuay and
practice.
The judge then delivered some ie.
structions to the jury regarding the les.
timonv OF the medical expert regardior
Mrs. Eliza Dangerield's mental coni,.
tioD, also in regard to the alleged stock
speculations of the testatrix.
Mr.. Johnson then announced that se
would read some dispositions relating H.
the mental condition of the testatrjx. tc
which Mr.. Burke entered protest. The
dispositions had been taken in B4lu.
more by those representing Mrs. Ellie
Daingerield. Mr.. Moore argued that
case could not be supplemented inre.
buttal This was an invsliab.e wl.s
save only in cases where some accident
or inadvertence was apparent. Es
cited number Of cases to sustain his
claim.
Counsel on the other side, however
laid that such was not the rule in Will
cases, and challenged the opposition 10
produce instances where what they
claimed was not allowable.
A long discussion followed. Mr.
Burke contended that the dispositions
should have been submitted previously
that to allow such q procedure now
would be merely submitting to a real
frmation of their case.
The court decided to admit the demo
sitious, ana gave succinctiy his reasous
therefor.
Dispositions of Mrs. NJ. E. Gwinu.
sister of Mrs. Eliza Daingerfeld; dr..
Mary Morris, sister OF the late Henry
Daingerfeld, sr., and OF Mrs. Ella T.
Carr, sister of Mrs. Eliza DaincerdeG
we're read. They all deposed tina. tae
mental and physical condition Of Mr..
Daingerfeld was remarkably good:
that they had seen her s few months
before Der death and had never seen
any difference in her mental state.
Mrs. Gwinn deposed that teslair1
had told her that she had left her y.op.
erty to her son Reverdy in trust ior hn
wife and children for the reason that
they had nothing, while her son Henry
had retained his estate intact.
a deposition of ReveEdy johnson rothcr
of the testatrix, was also read stating th,
when he saw his sister the fall before ht
death her mental condition was ucrir.rf
normal; she had good mind an firm vi.
Dispositions were being read when tlis re.
poIt closed.