The age-herald., 1902-02-01
William Rice, Jr's, Statement
 AstOniShes the Prosecution
1S96 WILLAT LAST ADMITTED
Recorder Agrees to It for Purpose of Comparing Benefits Rice, Jry Would Receive Under the
 Two Instruments.

New York, January 31.-Exciting devel- opments came at the close of this even- ing's session of the trial of Albert T. M. Rice. The will made by Mir. Rice in 1896 was admitted in evidence. This was a triumph for the prosecution. The will has been offered more than twenty times and each time has been barred because of the determined stand taken by the defense. On the other hand the defense scored telling point when William M. Rice, nephew of the millionaire, admitted that by the 1896 will he was bequeathed $240 indebtedness and that he and nine other heirs had signed an agreement with the trustees of the Rice institute whereby the heirs would get $75,OOO altogether if the 1896 will were probated. Arthur B. Kohn was under cross-exam- ination today at the trial of Albert T. Rice and was his business representative in Houston, Tex.
 William B. Jones, brother of the valet Charles Jones, was called to the witness stand. He said he was captain of a schooner trading between Buffalo Bayou and Trinity river, In Texas.
 The defense objected to testimony from him as to a letter written to him by his brother on the ground that conspiracy between the valet and prisoner had not been shown. The Recorder overruled the objection and the prosecution proceeded to examine him as to the chloroform he is alleged to have purchased for his brother.
 The defense objected again and MT. Orborne explained that he had shown that MT. Rice was poisoned and that the defense was in possession of the facts of the crime. The Recorder sustained the objection.
 Signatures Not Genuine.
 At the afternoon sesison MT. Henry Oliver said that in his judgment the sig natures to the 1900 will and to the checks in dispute were not in the handwriting of MT. Rice. The signatures to the 1896 will he declared to be genuine District At torney Osborne again offered the 1896 will as evidence and again 1t was ruled out. The witness was not permitted to tell of a conversation with Rice in April 1900 concerning the suits over Mrs. Rices will On cross-examination Oliver said he saw MT. Rice write check in Houston in 1895. He did not examine the check; did not have it in his hand. He thought that was the only time he ever saw Rice write
 William Rice, Jr., Witness.
 Thomas w. Ford of Houston, Fred L. Blinn, grand nephew of Rice. and William | M Rice Jr., were successively called to | the stand and examined. The object of their testimony was further to discredit the disputed signatures of Rice and to show that as friends and relatives of l the dead man they had never heard of Patrick as counsel for Rice.
 Mir Rice, IT, testified on ross-examin- ation that he had heard that the disputed signatures were forgeries before he saw them.
 Under which will do you receive the most?" asked MT. Osborne of MT Rice when counsel for the defense was through.
 Point for Defense.
 "Under the will of 1S96" The reply ap- peared to astonish MT. Osborne, and 1t delighted the defense. MT. Osborne had claimed that the Patrick will of 1900 gives all the relatives an interest in having this will admitted to probate.
 How do you make that out?"
 "Under the will off 1896 the indebtedness of our firm is bequeathed to me person. ally" MT. Rice replied.
 "Under which will does your family fare best?
 Under the will of 1900."
 The recorder ruled out the witness req son for his conclusions, and Mir. Rice gave him a list of surviving relatives. Every time the will of 1896 was mentioned MT Osborne made a motion to admit 1t into evidence. The recorder ruled against him every time. Finally, just before ad- journment, MT Osborne made another at tempt. He argued that the defense had opened the door by asking the witness to contrast the amount he would receive un- der the different wills.
 Admitted Will at Last.
 The recorder admitted the will on the ground that 1t was competent to show the interest of the witness. He said he had refused to admit it before because Mir. Osborne had offered 1t as proof of the motive of the murder of MT. Rice and as such the prosecution could raise a proper foundation by proving that Pat. rick had had access to the will before the | death of Mir. Rice
 MT. Rice was still on the stand at o'clock when court adjourned until Mon- day.