Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-03-27
VERDICT A PROPER ONE
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE BING-
HAMIN A WILL CASE.
Motion for New Trial Denied-The AL
legations Upon Which Applica-
ton for Rehearing Was Based.

Chief Justice Bingham, in Circuit Court
No. /. today overrued the motion for a
new trial in the Thomson will case, involv-
ing the estate of the late William Thom-
son, formerly United States consul at
Southampton. England. The estate is said
to consist of real estate in the District OF
Columbia and New York worth, 1t is stat
ed, about S125OOO. The property was left
to different relatives, some aliens and some
citizens, by a will bearing date in 1885,
The trial Of the case occupied the atten-
ton of the chief justice and jury for
about three weeks of January and Febru-
ary. the principal questions involved being
the mental capacity of the testator, and
whether or not the will, if properly made,
could be held to pass title to real estate in
this jurisdiction, where three witnesses
We're required for such purposes, as the will
itself had been acknowledged before two
witnesses upon one occasion, and two days
later before a third.
No evidence was produced to show that
the third witness had signed In the pres
ence of the testatOr, as required by statute,
as both the witness and the testator were
dead. The court allowed all the questions
to go to the jury for the latter to deter
mine the regularity of the execution, as
to the mental capacity Of the testator and
as to the presence of any alleged undue in
fiuence. The jury rendered a verdict the
afternoon of the 4th of February in favor
of the defendants, and thereby sustaining
the will.
Juror Accused of Intoxication.
In connection with the motion for a new
trial, in addition to the alleged error COM
mitted by the court in his instructions to
the jury upon the points mentioned, the
affidavits Of several of the jurors were pro-
duced, setting forth that one Of their num-
Der was under the influence Of liquor the
last day of the trial; was incapacitated
thereby from appreciating the instructions
of the court or from properly taking part
in the deliberations Of the jury. The jury
man in question subscribed to two afida-
Wits, one alleging that he was under the in
fiuence of liquor and another retracting the
statements in the first affidavit.
The motion was argued at length before
Chief Justice Bingham two weeks ago by
Attorneys C.. c. Cole, Leo Simmons and
Hugh T. Tagsart, in support thereof and
by Attorneys Wilton ]. Lambert and D. w.
Baker representing the defandants.
Views Of the Court.
Chief Justice Bingham in his opinion held
that there was 10 error In the charge
given to the jury by the court, and that
while a great deal of evidence had been
submitted tending to show misconduct on
'i'o pa I Va 'iie J"AS' l. was his oPiliioh lLdt
such matters were not proper to be ad-
mitted. they touching circumstances accru-
ing after the cause was submitted to the
jury but tending to allow Jurymen to throw
q cloud upon the conduct Of fellow Jury
men. The court ruled that the proper
course to be followed in the case, even
where it was shown that juryman might
have been under the influence of liquor, was
to ascertain whether the verdict was a
proper one, or such actions or conduct on
the part Of the jury had any bearing upon
the verdict which was rendered.
The chief justice took the stand that the
court should not disturb a verdict upon
the ground Of drunkenness of juror If the
court believed the verdict to be a Just one.
The verdict in the Thomson case was con-
sidered by Chief Justice Bingham a proper
one, SO he said.