The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-02-01
WILL OF 1896
 IS ADMITTED Osborne Finally Carries His Point. EVIDENCE IN RICE CASE Son of the Dead Millionaire
 on the Stand.
EVIDENCE IN RICE CASE
Some of His Answers to Questions Surprise the Prosecuting Attorney Henry Oliver Gives Testi-
 mony-Pastorici not Heard.


 bert T. Patrick today, William l.. Jones, brother of the valet, Charles F. 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 defence objected to the testimony from him as to a letter written to hisll by his brother. on the ground that consr tacy between the valet and pris- oner lad not been shown. The recorder overr uled the objection, and the prose- cution proceeded to examine him as to the chloroform he is alleged to have pur- chasesl for his brother.
 The defense objected again and MT. Osborne explained that he had shown that Mir. Rice was poisoned and that the defendant was in possession of the fruits of the crime. The recorder sustained the objection.
 Joseph J. Pastorici of Houston was not allowed to testify as to a conversation he had with Rice in 1890, and left the stand without being heard.
 Henry Oliver, now of Montreal. but formerly general manager of the Mer- chants and Planters oil Company of Houston, Tex, said he knew MT. Rice and that MT. Rice owned 75 per cent. of the company. The questions put to this wit ness were for the purpose of establishing lfc PAoPueltiOh tEoh 1tAtSp JASt kteSs -S~ his death, intended drawing his money from banks in New York to meet a draft he had authorized the oil company to draw. Recorder Golf ruled that the As sistant District Attorney had not laid proper foundations for the testimony. Mir. Osborne remedied the defect to the sat- isfaction of the court. and the witness said his company made draft on Rice. The draft itself was ruled out by the recorder when offered In evidence.
 At the afternoon session. Mir. Oliver sad that in his Judgment the signatures to the 1900 will and to the checks in dis pufe were not in the handwriting of MT. Rice. The signatures to the 1896 will. he q sclsrsd to he genuine. District Attor- uey Osborns a<gafn offered the fes6 wiil as evidence. and again 1t was ruled out. The witness was not permitted to tell of conversation with Rice in April, 1900, concerning the suits over Mrs. Rice's will.
 On cross-examination. Oliver said he saw Mir Rice write a check in Houston fin 1895. He did not examine the check; did not have 1t in his hand. He thought that was the only time he ever saw Rice write. Thomas W. Ford of Hous- ton William Rucker of Groesbeck. Tex, Frederick I. Blinn, grand nephew of EtlCe, anu WiliidHi INtCCt JIss WctC oNS- cessively called to the stand and exam ined. The object of their testimony was further to discredit the disputed sigma lures of Rice and to show that as friends and relatives of the dead man they had never heard of Patrick as counsel for Rice.
 William M. Rice. Jr., testified on cross examination that he had heard that the disputed signatures were forgeries before he saw them. He also said that his firm owed W. M. Rice s24.0OO which il would not have to pay if the, Patrick will of 1900 was denied probate.
 Under which will do you receive the most?'' asked MT. Osborne of MT. Rice when counsel for the defense was through.
 Under the will of 1S96."
 The reply appeared to astonish Mr. Osborne, and 1t delighted the defense. MT. Osborne had claimed that the Patrick will of 1900 gives all the relatives an in- terest in having this will admitted to probate.
 How do you make that out?"
 "Under the will of 1896, the indebted ness of our firm is bequeathed to me per sonally." MT. Rice replied.
 Under which will does you family fare best?''
 IL nQeT the VIII or l0VO.
 The recorder ruled out the witness's reasons for his conclusions and Mir. Rice gave him a list. of surviving relatives Every time the will of 1896 was mention ed MT. Osborne made a motion to admit it into evidence. The recorder ruled against him every time. Finally, just before adjournment Mir. Osborne made another attempt. He argued that the de fense had opened the door by asking the witness to contrast the amount he would receive under the different wills. The recorder admitted the will on the ground that 1t was competent to show the in- terest of the witness. He said he had refused to admit 1t before because Mir. Osborne had offered it 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