The Republican journal., 1901-01-17
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
WIN. H. FOGLER, JUSTICE PRESIDING.


from the beginning he stated that it was
then being tried as though no previous hear
ings had been held. will to be legal must
be made by person of legal age, of sound
! mind and not under undue influence. A
person has right to dispose of his property
as he thinks best, either during lifetime or
by will to take effect after death. We are
not to determine whether or not the will
was just and reasonable, but simply was it
the will of Amelia J. Cottrell. The contes-
tantS admit that the will was duly executed
and that Mrs. Cottrell was of sound mind.
So far the defendant has made out a
prima facia case. But the contestants claim
that undue influence was used, and that the
will was not the will of Amelia j. Cottrell,
but of other parties. If it was procured
through undue influence of some other
party it was not her will. A person may be
influenced by kindness or other proper mo-
tive to give property to one child and cut off
others; that is not undue influence A per-
son has the right to seek advice, and if it is
| properly given and does not subordinate the
will of the testator, it is not undue in
tiuence. 1t is claimed first, that Mrs. Cot
trell's will was subordinated to the will of
living persons, that Emery and his wife so
influenced her. Second, that she believed
that she received communications through
a Spiritualist medium from her deceased
husband, and acted under that direction.
Undue influence must be proved by some
word, act or conduct of the person accused
of exercising it. Was this will the result
of the dutiful life of Emery, or was it the
result of undue influence? If undue in
f1uence was attempted, but did not change
the mind of the testator, it was still her will.
If the influence coincided with her previous
intentions, then the will would stand. 1t is
not necessary to discuss the truth or fallacy
of Spiritualism. The question is, was it
reality to her. Was she influenced by it so
as to change her mind in the matter. If she
acted under what she thought to be commu-
nications from her deceased husband the
will would be void unless it was in accord
with her own previous opinion, in the same
manner as if the influence was exerted by
living person. Her own declarations on this
point are admissible as showing the state of
her mind on this point. Did she follow
such advice, or did she act of her own free
will? Was she induced by these communi-
cations to make a different will The claims
that some of the sons had their share of the
property during their fathers lifetime has
no bearing on the case. If the will was
made according to her own wishes, then it
must stand. The fact that testator disin-
herits one or more children does not invali-
date a will. The question is, was it her
own will and not the will of another?
The jury was asked to decide two ques-
tions, which after being out 20 minutes they
decided as follows:
Was the said Amelia j. Cottrell unduly
influenced in making her will? No.
Is the instrument here presented the last
will and testament of Amelia j. Cottrell?
Yes.
Exceptions filed and allowed.
Lttlefield for contestants. Dunton &
Dunton for defendant
After reporting on this case both juries
were excused until Friday morning, and the
afternoon was devoted to hearings on vari-
Gus matters, settling liquor cases, etc.
Fred p. Wiggn VS.. Emma W. Phppen.
In July, 1900, marriage ceremony was
performed between the parties, but it was
afterwards learned that the defendant had
not obtained an absolute divorce from her
former husband, Walter A. Phippen of
Chelsea, Mass, but was divorced ''nisi" by
a court in Massachusetts. Mr. Wiggin ap-
piled to the court to have the marriage an
nulled, and Judge Fogler so ordered. Dun
ton & Dunton for plaintiff
Gladys L. Coombs ct ais, VS. Martha A.
Freeman petition for partition of property
in Islesboro. At the April term, 1900, judg-
ment was rendered for partition and a
commission was appointed to make the par
tition. That warrant is revoked and j. P.
Farrow, H. P. Farrow and w. S. Pendleton
are appointed commissioners. Williamson
for petitioners. Knowlton for defendants.
Lester A. Bradford, petitioner for review,
VS.. Willis Philbrick. The petition is denied
with costs.
Both juries were discharged Saturday
morning and the Court finally adjourned in
the afternoon.
DIVORCE CASES.
Edith NJ. Graves, Belfast, VS.. Amos H.
Graves, do. divorce decreed. The counter
action was dismissed.
Walter w. Dodge, Belfast, VS.. Mary O.
Dodge, do. dismissed without prejudice
Ruby A. Maddocks, Swanville, VS.. John
II. Maddocks, do divorce decreed.
Lizzie F. Patterson, Belfast, VS.. Herman
L. Patterson, do; divorce decreed.
| Nellie D. Randlett, Islesboro, VS.. Herman
| j. Randlett, do. divorce decreed.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
Prince E. Luce and Carrie NJ. Luce, in
dicted for forgery, both pleaded not guilty
and gave bonds in $500 for appearance at
the April term of Court
The sum of $1,32O was collected in fines
and costs it liquor cases. The defendants
indicted as common sellers paid $110 in fine
and costs, each in one case, and if any per-
son had more than one the additional cases
were filed. Sentence was imposed in a few
more cases in which the fine and costs are to
be paid soon.
| Death of Admiral Phelps.