Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-02-21
MRS. PRITCHARD'S MIND
Defence Contends That She
Mas Entirely Competent
TO Make a Will.
SHE SAID JOHN WAS NOT HER SON
According to the Testimony
of One Witness--Evidence
for the Defence Now
-a Being Taken.

The defence Is having its innings in the
case of John pritchard vs.. Henry Hender-
son, which Is before the Superior Court.
The court Tuesday afternoon declined to
permit the plaintiff to Introduce testimony
as to a statement made by one of the
attesting witnesses OF the will of Caroline
o. Pritchard,
In opening for the defence, J. Harvey
Whiteman said: 4.
ave propose to prove that John Pritchard
was not the son of Caroline O. Pritchard.
but was the son of Lydia Brockman. We
will prove that this will was her last will
and testament, and that she was person of
sound mind. That she knew how to take
care of her own property, and that she was
capable of making will. Not until she
WINS aged did she cease to give her property
her personal attention. She acknowledged
Henry Henderson as her son. She took care
of him and raised him.. In her last days
she made her home with him."
Alfred d.. Mcvey, of Plea amt Hill, Nd.
who drew the will, was on the stand Tues
day afternoon and yesterday. On Jan. 18th,
1885, he went to her house and read to her
the will which she had directed him to
draw up for her. He found her precise and
clear concerning her property and dis
position of it, and concerning "her son
and the man that was not her son." He
believed her. of sound mind, memory and
understanding.
In the course of the visit, she raised her
hand-she WIS lying In bed at the time
and said. "As true as God is in heaven John
Pritchard is not my son."
She further declared that Pritchard was
the son OF Lydia Brockman, and that she
took him to raise for rs cents week. She
told MIR. McVey that in order to save fuss
she would give John a dollar, but the rest
of her property she gave to Henry Hender-
son. ss t- ~ .Hd
When it came to her signing il, she was
assisted in ooinR SO by Mr.. McVey. The
httesting witnesses were Smith II. Rogers
and Samuel Steward. She signed Caroline
@. Pritchard, nee Egner, because she had
some money in the Farmers Bank, this city,
in the name of Egner. "a 49, af
In cross-examiniug the witness, Albert
Constable asked him with reference to the
statements made by Mrs. Pritchard to him
concerning John Pritcherd.
Did You not know whether what she said
was delusiou, illusion. or imaginary or
real2n asked Mr.. Constable. @
81 have heard nothing yet to prove that
he Is her son, 7" said the witness.
''You have heard verdicts of several
juries, reckon" said Mr.. Constable.
Here MIR. Whiteman arose and declared :
"The time ought to be reached when
Constable had no right to speak as he had.
"Tbe time ought to come when counsel
Is respectful" snapped Anthony Higgins,
who is with Mr.. Constable in the case.
This interesting pass required adjustment
by the court, aud 1t cut out Mr.. McVey's
answer and Mr.. Oonstable's ejaculation
concerning verdicts. ssa = ~
MIR. McVey testified that Henry Hender-
son was not acquainted with the contents
of the will. sA sa.
After the jury Ind been discharged until
this afternoon, Mr.. Whiteman announced
that the $500, security for costs, required Of
the plaintiff, had been about exhausted,
and asked for rule on the plaintiff return
able on Monday, for security for $500. This
was recognized us an unusual motion, but
Mr.. Whiteman held that the statute con
templated that IA nonresident plaintiff
should be held responsible for the costs.
Mr.. Constable informed the court that il
would be practically impossible for the
plaintiff TO raise the money.
The court took the matter under advise
Inent. - 4" f