The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1902-12-20
BRADY'S WILL IS INVALID.
DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED
supreme Court Reviews Celebrated Case
and Afirms the Decisions Of the
Lower Courts, Appointing Frank Pine
Guardian Ad Litem Of Brady Children.


the case involving the validity OF the
will made by Judge G. Brady of this
county shortly before his death. IL
snstains the judgment Of the district
court inyaiidatlng the will.
Judge Brady was assassinated by
G. ii. Wilmbusse, whose sentence of
life Imprisonment was recently affirmed
by the supreme court. The judge lin
gered for some days after being shot
being taken to the hospital In Spokane
for treatment. Shortly before his death
he executed will, making John c.
Callahan his administrator and Father
Purcell the guardian ot bis minor chill
dren. The family Of Brady's deceased
wife are protestants, and they protested
against the children being given over to
the charge OF the priest. The children
themselves were abducted, and are now
in Iowa, this being one of the sensa-
tional features of the matter. The viii
was successfully attacked in the probate
court, and Frank Pine, brother of the
children's mother, was appointed their
guardian. The case was appealed to
the district court, where a similar iudg-
ment was rendered, and this is now
affirmed.
The opinion Of the supreme court is
by Justice StOckslager. After going
into the details Of the case from the
time of the tragedy, which are familiar
TO our readers, the opinion concludes
with the following statement.
ave have a Voluminous record from
which TO draw our conclusions, but the
exhaustive aud able briefs have been of
much service 10 us in grouping the
facts upon which TO base our opinion.
There are 81 assignments of error re-
lied upon by appellants. but as we read
the record the all-impOrtant question is
whether the deceased, John c. Brady.
was of sound and disposing mind at the
time he made what purports to be his
last will.
tliere follows the verdict returned in
the district c0nrt)
1T is very earnestly urged by counsel
for appellants that Notwithstanding the
demand tor jury 10 try the cause in
the probate court, and the fact that
such demand WAS in writing and filed
with the other papers in the district
court, and thereby part OF the record
OF the case as 1t came from the probate
court, yet TO justify the district court
or Judge thereof, in ordering a jury it
was necessary 10 renew this demand in
writing 10 said court. No authorities
are cited by counsel for either party to
this controversy bearing on this ques-
ton. We think with the written de-
mand for jury on Tile either party was
authorized TO enforce its demands i'm
the district court, and no notice was
necessary TO be given Of such intention.
and that there was no error in the rul-
ing OF the court on this motion.
From the record In this case we are
informed that on the night Of the 5th
day Of July, 1901, John c. Brady, who
was the probate judge Of Kootenai
county, was shot 10 the face by one c.
II. Wilmbusse, the ball entering just be
low the right eye and ranging back
wards horizontally and lodged at the
base Of the skull That he was removed
TO the Sacred Heart hospital at Spokane,
Wash, on the night Of the 9Th of July,
or morning Of the 9th, and there re-
manned until his death, which occurred
: on the 18th day Of July, 1901.
/ (The will and the dying declaration Of
Judge BRADY are here introduced.)
. The condition of the mind OF Judge
Brady at the time he made the dying
declaration and at the time OF the will
was the subject upon which much of
the evidence in the case was directed.
The contest of the will was based upon
the theory that at the time il purpor'
to have been executed deceased was "a
such condition mentally and physical e
, that he was incapable of making will
The evidence is conflicting on this
question. The jury. after hearing all
the evidence and instructions of the
court as to the law Of the case, rendered
their general verdict in favor of contes-
tant and respondent. The only two
special findings returned by the jury in
dictate that 1t was unanimous on this
question. This being true, under the
well-settled rule of this court that where
there is a substantial conflict in the evil
3 dence and the trial.court refuses to set
. the verdict aside, this court win not dis
| turb its rulings"
The opinion then deals with an
l assignment of error, based on a ruling
upon the challenge of two Jurors. II
finds there was no error. Other alleged
errors are dismissed without comment
1t being found unnecessary to pass upon
! them.
The case was one of the most senSa.
!. tional ever tried in the county, and
caused much bitterness, which wa:
manifested in the campaign. In the
contest Father Purcell was represented
: by Cyrus Happy OF Spokane, james
! Graham of this place, and c, L. Heit
d man of Rathdrum. Frank Pine, guar
+ dian ad litem and successful contestant
e of the win, was ably represented in tn,
e courts by Attorneys John b. Goode anC
s Willis Sweet Of this place.
------