The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1903-11-12
he CoTTRELL WILL CASE DECIDED

udge Peabody has rendered MS uecls-
u in the case of George 2. Cottrell and
Aers, appellants VS.. Robert E. Cottrell, ex-
tor. The case was heard at the April
m, 1903, and the decision is rendered
II that term. 1t is as follows
This cause coming on for hearing evil
-uee was introduced in support of the Pc
on which had been presented and de-
d in the Probate Court for said County
arguments of counsel were made.
4 rehearing on the probate of the will of
..urge w. Cottrell, late of Belfast, in said
unity, deceased, which was proved, ap-
wed and allowed by the decree of the
preme Court of Probate, is sought by the
-litioners on the ground OF newly dlscov-
I'd evidence tending to prove that the tes-
l.pT at the time the viii was executed did
have testamentary capacity and that the
n was executed under undue influence ex-
ed by Amelia j. Cottrell, the widow and
duary legatee. This will was proved,
proved and allowed by the Probate
Irt for said County November Sth, A. ID.
:, and after the hearing on appeal in the
preme Court of Probate February Attn,
~, the appeal was dismissed and no .ex-
-ptions were taken by the appellants.
/; is admitted that this proceeding is
,perly before this Court on appeal 1t
pt4arS that both the issues presented
re raised before the Probate Court and
50 by the Reasons of Appeal in the Su-
eme Court of Probate, but no evidence of
due influence was offered.
he evidence claimed to be newly discov
sJ nnder the first issue is necessarily
.,r1,lative The testimony of Andrew J.
Hens is to the effect that when the witness
sd to seq the tasfat0r on business at
nut the time the will was executed, he
is informed by the widow that the testa-
q could not be seen as he was not in con-
-71,l 10 transact anv business. This evl-
o,.a can only he admissible as tending to
'(radirt The testimony Of the widow as a
ness in support of the probate of the
b The testimony of Stephen Patterson
..l,,S that he saw the testator a week prior
+Ie date of the execution of the will and
If he took no notice. of the witness.
ne alIpged newly discovered evidence in
mort of the second issue consists prin-
l,il1v of the alleged admissions of the
los after the will had been allowed on
,',l.,l thar she made threats and did acts
.-aId the tastator which influenced him to
l-r The will in her favor. which adms-
.s were made to Intimate and confden-
. friends Who did moi mention the fact
-, a(tar tle death of the widow.
.-laysnt testimony was also submitted
5in,, to show the exercise of due dill
ne ON the part of the petitioners.
'fhe xitnesSes>who are now called under
.,lie"ei Undue influence are relatives and
NIT .rGTaiutances of the testator and
''ll'' Wi1ow and Their residences were in the
.,n,liata Vicinity Jhpy we're not called
aitbar nartV 70 testjfy in the original
.,.fasts stlel m, pi,s' tha 'nrnhate Of the will.
tbe ", nolicT Gli Of the law that the estates
ia,.as1led .,.t narsons ha nrnmntlv settled and
-. s TGgbfs "f P persnns entitled thereto estab-
.haf 70 this end the right of appeal
IHs,l - tnls f enu lanre .ne {7 Tho prphate
.lirt is eIimited to twenty DAYS with the
rtber 10 right iatI, within ona var TO netiton
ieava fo enter an appeal if omitted by
.,aka or accident' nroTided Justice shall
.,,S 4r raoI,ira ua # TbaSe waters of review
,,at w. oa,ne nndar tba statntorv procedure
nv I,orizing i0, G,,i naW trials ON the ground of
.4,lIJ. discovared evidence And a rehear-
~ ti,e,a far eiiou;na anneals has
al.Gl @ si,e t,,i1 i7 ibi m ron+aG II ut all in
-ar cases which demonstrate that there
,uuld otherwise be a failure of justice for
hiob ha partv nptitinniOb has not con-