Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-11-03
Litigation for To Possession Promises
to Be Bitter.
GRAVE CHARGES MDE BY GRANDSON
Declares That his Grandfather's
viii was Never Valid.
OTHER ALTON


mehle said to be worth In the neighborhood
of 100000. has become involved in extern
sive litigation. Charles H. Utermehle, a
grandson of the deceased. some time ago
filed caveat to the will Of his grandfather.
and yesterday afternoon hearing was had
before Justice Cole In the Probate Court
upon the question of framing issues for
trial by Jury. and also upon q petition
brought by the principal benedciaries Of
the alleged will. who seek to have Charles
Utermehle stopped in his proceedings as
caveator.
Justice Cole postponed further hearing
until some day to be agreed upon next
week. during which time permission was
granted to the caveator to file answers to
all questions Of alleged estoppel.
Today Messrs. Lambert 6 Lambert. R.
Ross Perry and D. W. Baker, as attorneys
for Charles H. Utermehle, filed his answer
to the question mentioned
The answer consists of fifteen typewriter
pages. and states that without waiving any
OF his rights to rely upon the caveats here
tofore presented by him, and protesting
against the jurisdiction of the Probate
Sourt TO determine any question of estoppel.
he charges that the paper writing now on
nile alleged to be the will of George w.
Utermehle. deceased, is not and never has
Deen IN any way valid as to real property,
garding its probate as to personality was
formal, and carried in the absence of OBJ
lection.
Claims to Have Been Misled.
lie AYERS that the real property left by
George w. Utermehe was and is worth
ABOUT Sl,2OOOO0, admits that with the ex-
ception of square 765 practically all the
remainder of the estate is alleged to have
neen devised to Rose NJ. Taylor and Ma
mic o. Norment as tenants in common; that
at THIS time he was and had for six years
Deen resident of Frederick. Md, and hav-
ing been in poor health knew then little of
what his grandfathers mental condition
was few months before he died when II
IS SAID, the Will in question was made; that
ne was ignorant of his rights at the time
and was. 1t Is alleged misled by misrepre-
sensations made to him by Rose NJ Taylor
In the presence of, and said to have been
acqulesced In by, Sarah Utermehle and
NAME f. Norment; that he was also then
ignorant Of the undue influence which he
says. was practiced upon deceased by Rose
M. Taylor and her husband, Leroy M Tay-
tor, in order to secure the will: that during
the last three years of his life deceased was
completely under their control and was
not himself.
Concerning the small devise and beuuest
to him In the viii the Respondent saws that
upon discovery for the first time of the true
condition affecting It's validity he consulted
counsel and rendered back by letter the al
legged devise and legacy. and not having
heard from petitioners had Instituted his
suit two months thereafter.
Regarding the supposed legacy of a note
to him of $3.50 he says that this was one OF
four notes. each for the same amount,
which had been given by his father and
secured by a deed Of trust upon certain
property which had been sold. He SAYS the
note was fifteen years old and had been
twice paid during the lifetime of deceased
and note having been delivered, awas. In
fact, paid by the trustees under the sal
and delivered to them. on account of which
he says. the note was not even In the GUS
tody of deceased at the time of his death
that this condition was known to petition
ers and was he alleges really a matter OF
restitution and artifice to deceive him.
other Allegations.
Mr.. Utermehle also says that after the
death Of his grandfather the latter's will
was read in the presence Of the widow
Mrs. Taylor. Mrs Norment and himself
and that Mrs. Taylor at once announced to
him that they realized he had been cut off
with but little, but his grandmother
would receive about half of the estate
things would be equaliZed by her will. Mr.
Utermehle says this was agreed to by
others, and that he then relied upon their
good faith. but he declares not mindful OF
this stipulation the widow made will a
few months thereafter, in which no extra
provision was made for him. He AYERS
that between the time of the death of Geo.
W. Utermehle and the death of his widow
the petitioners systematically secured large
sums of money from their mother. The
petitioner Rose M. Taylor, 1t is alleged
going so far as to prevail upon Sarah Uter-
mehle to pay $3O,0U for tract of land
belonging to petitioner which Is said not
to have been worth more than So 600, and
to have been offered by George w. Utter
mehle just before his death for $4,000 He
declares that by reason of this drain upon
her resources and contributions to charity
the fortune of Sarah Utermehle. which is
said to have amounted to s6OO.O0O or 500.
600 in 1889. was reduced to less than $500
600 in 1898. excluding certain promissory
notes made by her heirs at law.
Charges Fraud and Deceit.
Respondent also says that upon learning
Of this condition he protested to the petit
TONERS, but without avail and was then
himself taken seriously i'll and compelled
| to go away for time, only returning in
November last. when he at once began in
| vestigations. which led to the present liti-
cation. He claims that no plea Of estoppel
can in any way be maintained against him,
especially as, he charges, the petitioners
| and Leroy M. Taylor have tainted all pro-
ceedlngs heretofore taken with fraud and
deceit. and that while some of the original
estate Of George W. Utermehle has been
been reinvested in valuable property, and
| that by far the greater part of the original
estate Is now In their possession. He
| further submits that no rights Of third par
| ties are shown to be threatened or leopard
| lied. and that only such could make use OF
such a defense. the petitioners, by their
own wrongful action. are averred to be
| estopped from prosecuting any such de-
Tense.
OLD WOMAN IN THE SHOE.
Heilbrun & Co. In Possession of Their