The Washington times., 1902-03-27
PROGRESS MADE In
UHBRMEHLB WILL CASE
Documentary Evidence and
Viii Read to Jury.
Witnesses Testify That They Knew of
No Other Will Than the One in Con-
troversy.

Upon the contest over the estate of the
late George W. Utermehle being resumed
yesterday morning before Justice Bar
nard and jury in Probate Court, the first
witness placed upon the stand was Mr..
Wilton J. Lambert, one OF the attorneys
for the contestant Charles H. Utermehle.
He testified as to the formalities attend
ing the tender in 1900 by Mr.. Utermehle
Of the property which he had taken, a.
he alleges. under a mistake of fact and Of
law, from the estate of his grandfather,
and to the ability of Mr.. Utermehle to
have responded and make good the terms
of his tender at that time.
Mr.. Lambert also testified that day or
so after the letter was written he was
called upon by Mr.. Worthington. and, in
a conversation regarding the matter, was
informed that he had been employed rs
counsel for the caveatees, who stated that
they proposed to contest in the courts the
validity of the grandEon's claim, and re-
fusing TO accept or accede to the tender
made.
Real Estate Men Testify.
Following Mr.. Lambert, Mr.. Charles H.
Handy, a local real estate dealer. was
placed upon the stand. and confirmed the
testimony of Mr.. Utermehle as to his
dealings and the purposes for which the
power of attorney as given to Mr.. Han
dy while the former was sick, in April,
1893. It was for the purpose, as the wit
ness said, of receiving certain moneys
coming to Mr.. Utermehle from the estate
of his grandmother.
Following Mr.. Handy, Mr.. l.. S. Fristoe
was called. He testified that in 1889 he
was, as agent, acquainted with the rental
value of the estate of George w Utter
nehle. and that the rental value was
about $50 600 per year at that time.
Documentary Evidence.
Following this, representatives from the
District Building were placed upon the
stand to testify as to the property as
sessed in the name of Samuel Norment
and George ". Utermehle in 1889, and as
TO the assessed values thereof. The wit
ness produced a number of large books
in which such assessments were re-
corded.
a large amount OF documentary EVIL
dence was also introduced and the will
itself read TO the jury.
The case of Norment against Norment,
in which Mrs. Norment proceeded in equi-
ty to have deed set aside that she had
made to her husband of property received
by her from her father. upon the ground
that the deed was not properly obtained,
was introduced in evidence.
Knew of No Other Will.
1t was admitted that at The present
time there is embraced in Mrs. Taylors
estate substantially all of the real estate
which was obtained from her father under
the will in question, and that Mrs. Nor
ment is at present in possession of over
s100. 900 of the original property, the same
having been received by her through the
compromise decree which was finally
signed in the case Of Norment against
Norment.
Mrs. Booze, the daughter of Mrs. Nor
ment and granddaughter of George w.
Utermehie. and young Mr.. Norment were
both placed upon the stand to testify that
they knew OF the existence of no other
will than the one in controversy.