The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1901-09-26
ESTATE At STAKE.
WILL OF JOHN q. SCHMIDT AL
LEGGED TO BE A FORGERY.
BROTHER OF DEAD MAN SAYS so
He Asks the United States Court to
Cancel the Order Admitting the
Document to Probate-Prop-
erty Is Valued at 81, 500.

ne lTlal OIL lno suit Drought ny JUS
eph Schmidt of Keonger, Wurtamburg.
Germany, against Margaret Reichley
and Henry Mueller to secure the cam
collation. of the alleged will of John G.
Schmidt, who died at Glen. Beaverhead
county September Is, 1896, was COM
menced In the United States court to-
day. 1t being an equity action, jury
was not required.
The ground upon which the complaint
IL based is studded with allegations of
wrong doing on the part of the defend
ants, but the answers deny these asser-
lions and add that they are .scandalously
false and untrue
The plaintiff says in his complaint
that he is brother of the dead man and
that August 20, 1894. the latter executed
a will in which he was named as the
beneficiary OF the estate. valued at about
$500; that John G. Schmidt died Sep
TENDER IS, 1896, and for long time prior
there to he had been in feeble health and
of unsound mind: that after his death
document purporting to be the last will
and testament Of the dead man was Of
fered for probate in the district court of
Beaverhead county by Margaret Reich
ley: that Nov. %, 1900, the alleged
will was admitted to probate and Mrs.
Reichley appointed executrix of the es-
tate. In that document, it is alleged.
Mrs. Reichley and Mr.. Mueller We're
made the benefclaries. The names of
John J. O'Handley. NJ. A. Hickey and
Charles H. Grund are attached to it as
witnesses, and it Is alleged that they
were bribed with money consideration
or a portion Of the state to attach their
names to it.
1t is further claimed that the men
whose names appear as witnesses were
boarders of Mrs. Rechley, and that she
was heavily indebted to Mr.. Mueller;
that she was well acquainted with Mr..
Schmidt and consplred with others to
get hold Of his estate; that the sigma
ture to the purported will is not that of
Schmidt; that the latter never signed
the alleged will or authorized anyone to
sign 1t for him; that at the time the wit
nesses signed the will they did so with
out the presence of Mr.. Schmidt and
well knew he was dead
The PLAINTIFF is being represented by
l. G. Denny and H. j. Savary and the
defendants by Charles r. Leonard and
E. ]. Dierks.
The first witness called was George W.
French, clerk of the district court at
Dillon.
What is your name?" asked Attorney
Denny.
George w. French
Your honor said Attorney Dierks,
at this stage in the proceedings, 'we
desire to object to the introduction OF
any testimony in behalf of the plaintiff
on the ground that the court has no
jurisdiction of the subject matter of this
action.'
The objection was argued and over
:uled.
Mr.. French produced the will ad-
nlitted to probate in his court and was
EXCUSED.
Mrs. NJ. Rush, the niece of the dea
man, testified that she had known he
uncle fifteen years, having first met hir
In 1881. She said she was familiar wit
his handwriting, as she had seen letter
written by him to her father. On or
occasion, she said, she saw him write
letter. After he had finished it he ha
asked her to add a few lines to it..
This letter was produced in court.
Mrs. Bush was then shown the sigma
ture to the alleged will and asked if
was the handwriting of her uncle.
That is not his SIGNATURE she said
Anyone can see that"
Were Mr. Schmidt's letters written
in German?" asked Mr.. Leonard, on
cross-examination.
NO; they We're written in Montana. !"
You don't understand my question.
Were the letters of Mr.. Schmidt written
in the German language or the English
language?"
I'm the English language"
Mrs. Bush, at the request of Mr.. Leon
ard, made a further comparison be.
tween the signature in the alleged will
and that of the letter exhibited. and
pointed out what she considered diff.
ference between Them
The two documents were then submit
ted to Judge Knowles for inspection.
Mr.. Bush, husband of Mrs. Bush. tes-
tined that he had seen an alleged Schmidt
Will In an attorneys office here January
5, 1900 and he believes it was forgery.
He also expressed the lRief that the
VIII admitted to probate in Beaverhead
county was also forgery. He had
known Schmidt, he said, and while he
aid not consider him insane he thought
MS mind was weak. The witness said