Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-04-07
THE WILL SUSTAINED
Court Instructs Jury in
Utsrmehle Case
FAVORS .CAVEATEES
PROPERTY INVOLVED VALUED
AT OVER $1,000 900.
Judge Declares Will Should Be Pro-
bated--Attorneys Give Notice
Of Appeal.

In the contested VIII case involving the
estate of George w. Utermehle, deceased,
Justice Barnard, in the Probate Court, to-
day announced that, being of the opinion
that the evidence before the court was not
sufficient to sustain a verdict in favor of
the caveator on either one of the two issues
of estoppel, he would instruct the jury to
return verdict in favor of the caveatees
on all the issues.
when 1t Is determined that the caveator
is estopped to dispute the will explained
Justice Barnard, there is no one to con-
test 1t further, and the caveatees are enti
tied to have the other issues disposed of
and the will duly probated, its execution
being admitted
Attorneys Perry, Lambert and Baker,
representing the caveator,- noted an appeal
from the ruling of the Court Of Appeals.
Attorneys Worthington, Woodward and
Frailey appeared for the caveatees.
AS is well known, the contest over the
estate of the late George w. Utermehle is
Said to involve title to more than 81 900, 900
of District property The contestant, Chas.
H. Utermehle, is the grandson and one of
the heirs at law of the deceased. He
charges that a will made about fourteen
months before his grandfathers death and
which was offered for probate to real
property in 1900, was procured by undue
influence and fraud, and that the testator
was lloL lIleilolly CdplDle OIL executing
valid testament ut the time.
The Personal Estate.
The will was probated as to personal es-
tate some years ago, and the grandson al
legged that under a promise by his two
aunts and his grandmother, who had re-
ceived part of the property, that the
latter would equalize his share at her death,
dcsisted from proceeding against the will
nrt1, N-fl, C.Dd nA
and the proceeds of $3.50 note left him by
the will.
Upon the death of his grandmother the
contestant testified that he found that the
alleged promise had not been kept and that
his aunts had possession of all save small
portion of the estate. In 1899, he said he
became aware for the first time of his legal
rights and Of the alleged fact that the will
was the product of. fraud and undue inf1u-
ence, Whereupon he rendered back what he
had received and started the contest.
After the court had decided preliminary
questions Of law, for the caveator to open
and close the case and fixing the burden Of
the issues of estoppel as to both personal and
real property, upon the caveatees a ruling
as to the neutrality-suspicious. to the jury upon
the evidence SO far adduced on the issues
OF estoppel was asked, 1t being pointed out
that If the instruction was to be adverse
to the caveatee on this point, they preferred
question before proceeding further with the.
case and increasing the record The argu-
ment extended over three days concluding
out last Wednesday, since which time the
court mas nadine matter Under Amusement
The cayeatees, in whose favor the court
mas ruled, are Or. Leroy NJ. Taylor, Mrs
Mamie E. Nafmfnt, Leroy NJ. Tayler, jr.,
and Mildred ana Dorothy Taylor. } -
The Courts Conclusions.
The opinion of Justice Barnard, in part,
follows:
IF the court was correct in its ruling
when the question of the plaintiffs ig-
norance of the law was allowed to be asked
then the fact of whether he was or was not
Ignorant would be such a matter as should
be determined by the jury on all the facts
and circumstances of the case
Also the question of his ignorance of
any evidence as to the testamentary capaci-
ty of the testator and the alleged undue
influence, fraud and coercion could properlv
be submitted to the jury for their deter
mination, if that was in doubt and became
controlling feature of the case
Giving him, however, the benefit of his
own testimony and all the other evidence,
to the fullest extent, and allowing all fair
differences that would seem to arise there
from, l think the evidence now before the
court is not sufficient to sustain a verdict
IN 1aVor or the cayeator on either one of
the two issues of estoppel; and If the facts
were submitted to the jury and they should
conclude therefrom that the plaintifr was
not estopped, and answer these issues in
Tie negative, should reel 1t my duty, with
my present understanding of the law prop
erly applicable to the case, to set the YER
dict aside and grant new trial.
Regarding Ignorance of Law.
Il am convinced by the examination of
authorities and by reflection, that the
plaintiff cannot be heard in this case to
say that he was ignorant of the law If
a litigant could be permitted to prove his
ignorance of the law by his own state
ment of that fact, his adversary could in
no way contradict it; for what is. or is
not in the mind Of any one, cannot be
shown in the absence of some act Of ex-
preston which could disclose it to others.
1T is said that the maxim Ignorance