Evening star., 1902-03-17
UTERMEHLE ESTATE
Contest Over Will Involving
Large Interests.
THE HEARING BEGUN
OPENING STATEMENT OF CoUN-
SEL FOR CAvEATOR.
Decedent Left Property Valued at Over
$1,000, ,Ooo-His Grandson
Brings the Suit.
THE HEARING BEGUN

begun today before Justice Barnard and a
jury in the Probate Court Of the contested
will case involving the estate of George w.
Utermehle. deceased. The estate is said to
be worth considerably more than 100000.
1t is believed that the hearing. which Is be-
ing held IN the room Of Criminal Court No.
z. will be in progress about seven or eight
weeks. The caveator is Charles H. Uter-
mehle, grandson of the deceased. and the
caveatees are Mrs. Mamie E. Norment.
daughter Of George w. Utermehle; DR.. Le-
roy NJ. Taylor, q son-in-law of the de-
ceased; Leroy NJ. Taylor. jr., son of DR..
Taylor. and Mildred and Dorothy Taylor. the
two little daughter of Leroy NJ. Taylor. jr.
1t is alleged that in the making of his will
coercion was brought to bear upon George
W. Utermehle, and that he was not Of
sound and disposing mind at the time the
paper writing purporting to be a will was
executed.
The caveator. Charles n. Utermehle. Is
represented by Attorneys r. Ross Perry,
Wilton j. Lambert and d. w. Baker. while
Attorneys A. 8. Worthington, Thomas P
Woodward and Charles L. Frailey appear
for the caveatees The following were i'm
paneled as a jury: Messrs. John H. Grove.
Harry F. Dunkhorst, J. Hiram Johnson, L.
Johnson Fletcher. John w. Danenhower,
Augustus B. Bishop, Frank G. Nolte, Jas
r. Willet, Clarence e. Latimer, Charles H.
d. +
Kendrck
Justice Barnard ruled that the caveator
should act as plaintiff, and therefore have
the opening and closing. Accordingly. At
torney Perry began the proceedings with an
explanatory address to the Jury.
He stated that George w. Utermehle
was born in Germany in 1915 and moved to
this country in 1882, when he was seven
vania lady in 1886. Charles H. Utermeile
ST.. the father Of the caveator, and his
twin sister, Rose NJ. Taylor, were born In
1899. Charles Fl. UtermehIe, ST., was the
only son of the testator. and he married
in 1851. and died in 1867. leaving his
only son the grandson Of George w. Utter
mehle. the caveator in the case now on
hearing.
Outlines Proposed Testimony.
After detailing the movements Of young
Utermehle during the lifetime OF his IA
ther. Mr.. Perry announced that evidence
would be produced to show that not only
did the warmest personal feeling exist be-
tween grandfather and grandson. but that
on several occasions the grandfather had
specifically stated that he proposed making
ample provision for the future Of his grand
son. According to Mr.. Perry. at the time
Of the death Of George w. Utermehle, the
grandson was induced to desist from con-
testing the will upon the promise OF the
other heirs that upon his grandmothers 8
y
Counsel added that it would be shown that
not only was this not done, but that be-
tween the time of the death of George w.
Utermehle and the death of his widow the
large estate which she had derived from
her husband had been so disposed of,
under the control Of her daughters, that a
third share thereof only amounted in
money to about $4,000. As an instance
erty, so the jury was informed, it would
be proved that Mrs. Utermehle was re-
quired at one time to give Mrs. Norment,
q daughter, Sic, 500 which was not equal
iZed with the caveator, and that Mrs. Tay-
lor, the other daughter, induced her to pur-
chase a piece Of property belonging to Mrs.
Taylor for the sum Of 10000, which was
not. it was claimed. WORTH at the outside.
more than $1,000. Continuing, Mr.. Perry
stated that 1T would also be shown that
George w. Utermehle did not acquire the
greater portion Of his estate himself. as
had been generally supposed, but that 1t
was nearly all derived from his father.
Habits Of George W. Utermehle.
While George W. Utermehle was man
Of shrewdness and ability In early life. ac-
cording to the speaker, as he advanced in
years the drinking habit grew upon him
and became constantly subject to the In
fluence Of intoxicating drinks. The Jury
was informed that he kept bottles at differ
ent restaurants where he would make his
daily round, and that witnesses would be
produced to testify regarding this habit.
Mr.. Utermehle was always accompanied in
the latter years OF his life by a caretakRr
so explained the attorney. and his business
was entirely looked after by Mrs. Taylor
and her husband, DR.. Leroy M. Taylor
The deceased was in the habit OF walking
along the street talking in most excite
manner and holding protracted conversa-
tions with invisible persons. and, in short
SO the attorney contended, his methods
would be shown to be such as no sane man
IN
on to say that although a man of great
wealth. Mr. Utermehle used nothing but
the commonest whisky. Mrs. Taylor and
Dr. Taylor 1t was alleged. were in close
time Of the death Of the caveator's father
In 1867 up until the time Of the death of
George w. Utermehle.
Mrs. Taylor's Will.
1t would also be shown SO Attorney Per-
ry promised, that Mrs. Taylor's will was
made shortly after the death Of her father
and that 1t would appear from that instru-
ment that DR.. Leroy M. Taylor had such in
nuence over her that he was enabled to
procure from her a will in his favor which
cut off their only son with an income OF
1890 a year. and which made absolutely
no provision for the testatrix's grandchil-
dren. Attention was called to what the
speaker characterized a significant fea-
ture of the caSe-that after the caveat was
filed and Leroy NJ. Taylor found his deal
ings were to be Investigated. he then, and
not until then, came into court with a.
statement as to q verbal declaratio of
trust. It was declared that only In this
way was he forced to surrender property
which was obtained from his son and the
sons children through his alleged influence
over his wife. It was further charged that
proof would be offered to the effect that
Samuel Norment succeeded. through al
legged undue influence over his wife, IN pro-
curing from her deed to considerable prop
erty, and that by his will he attempted to
divide this property among the children of
a former marriage equally with the children
Of his then marriage. This. 1t was claimed.
showed a deep-lafd scheme on the part Of
Leroy N. Taylor. ST.. and Samuel Norment
the sons-in-law OF George w. Utermehle to
absorb for themselves all the property Of
his estate and cut OF completely the In
heritance due to the blood Of George w.
Utermehle and to the only living person in
the family who was now entitled to bear
he M nj TNtpPrnah1o