The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1902-06-19
THE MOORE W1LLaCASE.
Arguments of Learned Coun-
Gil Will be Made Before
Both Judges.


any Sank Centre citizen has ever at
tracted as much attention as the pro-
batting of the will of Alexander
Moore. The facts, familiar to most or
the readers of the HERALD, briefly are
these: In 1891 Michael Hogan,s his
trusted attorney for several years, drew
will for Mr.. Moore bequeathing $1,000
each to four of his grandchildren, a
daughter of Mrs. Bennett and the
three sons of Lin Moore. One grand
child, the daughter of Lin Moore was
made one of the three residuary leg
atees of his estate valued at his death
at about 100000. The other residuary
legatees were his wife and his daugh-
ter, Mrs. Robertson. The will prac-
tically cut out three children-his son,
Lin Moore and his daughters, Mrs.
Bennett and Mrs. Vinje, and explicitly
stated reasons for so doing. Mrs.
Moore died in the spring of 1901.
The will provided that in the case OF
any of the benefciaries dying such
share should be distributed among the
survivors under the terms of the will.
Mr.. Hogan was made executor OF the
will and trustee of the estate during
so much of ten years as might be nee
essarv to realize best results for the
b,nefit of the heirs, with full dlscre-
tionary power-to handle the estate
as the testatOr might or could have
done had he lived. In December last
Mr.. Moore died, and the will was Of
fered for probate by Mr.. Hogan on
January last. The probatlngwas con-
tested on behalf of Mrs. Vinji by her
attorneys, Messrs Vaule of Crookston,
and REYNOLDS & Roeser OF St. Cloud,
aud after an adjourned hearing, the
probate court admitting will, the case
was appealed to the District court.
Mr.. Hogan employed Messrs. Bruener
and Stuart of St. Cloud as his attor-
neys, and the contestant added Geo.
M. Bennett of Minneapolis and John
Sullivan of St. Cloud to her list OF
attorneys. Before this trial in the
District court she assigned half in
tsrest in the estate to her original at
sorneys.
Judge Searle denied jury trial,
and last week the case was heard in
ST. Cloud, with Judge Searle presiding.
While the pleadings alleged fraud,
constraint, influence upon Mr.. Hogan
and the residuary legatees, and a
subsequent will as separate lcauses
for contest, upon the trial the latter
only was relied upon-practically no
testimony being offered on any other
point. q.
After formally proving the will of
1891 by the witnesses to it, J. q. Sim
onton G. H. Bennett, the proponents
case rested, and the contestant intro
duced testimony to prove subsequent
will. D. G. VanCamp of this city
swore that in October 1893 he executed
a will for Alexander Moore, and re-
peated it's contents accurately. 1t was
a complete revocation of the will of
1891, bequeathing all of his property
to his wife during her lifetime, and
after her death, aside from a few
special legacies, the property was dis
tributed equally among his children
or their heirs. S. M. Herbert of West
Union, now dead, and Fred LANCE of
this city were the witnesses of this
will. Mr.. VanCamp was subjected to
. severe cross-eXamination to test his
memory as. to other wills drawn by
him. Mr.. LANCE swore that he signed
adocument which Mr.. Moore said.was
his will, but he did not know the other
witness present at the time, and did
not see either him or Mr.. Moore sign
the paper. In rebuttal five witnesses,
residents of Sank Centre, were called
to impeach the veracity of Mr.. VaI-
Camp, and five others were called by
the contestant to affirm his character
Conversations relative to the estate
Aof Mr.. Moore between Mr.. VanCamp
and others were denied by him, and
necited in more or less detail by the
enthers. Mr.. Hogan swore that Mr..
Van tCamp did no business for Mr..
Moore since 1889.
He was witness as to his relations
uft, Mr.. Moore, and a point was at
-
tampted to be made that ne, having
accass to Mr.. Moore's papers, ought
20 know what became OF the will q
1sa3 He swore he never saw any