, 1904-06-15

Importance clear up until IA short time prloI
to his death.
Some witnesses have given proof that Cap
laln Wheaton showed aversion towards his
WIFE. This may have been true az times
!Ihey may have quarreled at times, but there
Is a difference between delusion and aversion,
l agree with counsel for the proponents thai
aversion may be the result of delusion or IL
may not; and to prove existence of aversion.
even though II may be without any explained
reason, is not sufficient to prove the existence
of delusion.
The difference between a will, the product
OF a delusion, and a will, the product of an
aversion or prejudice, is well Indicated by
Judge Whelply in the case of Boylen VS..
Meeker, Dutch, p. 274, where he says on d.
~ "ihat the will to others, not having the
means OF knowing what the ~testator knows.
not occupying his standpoint, not having
HVed ms life, not having his secret affections
anu mates, may seem unreasonable, injudi-
cious ana even unjust, is no reason WHY il
should be declared a product of "A diseased
mind; the testator has "a right to make an
unreasonable, unjust, injudicious will, and
ms nelgnDors nave no right, sitting as "A Jury.
10 alter the disposition of his property simpiy
because they may think the testator did not
40 justice to his family connections and
nenee IL Is quite clear that n delusion, and
not mere aversion or dislike is necessary TO
Indicate such mental unsounduess as to pre-
elude testamentary disposition.
l therefore reach the conclusion that there
Is no satisfactory proof that Captain Philip
NJ. Wheaton entertained anv delnsions or
insane aversions which could have been
operative against his wife. The paper offered
Tor probate Is the last will and testament OF
Philip M. Wheaton, deceased, and should he
admitted to probate, and | wi | sign an order
10 that effect.
IL. II. VOORHEES,, Judge.
AT the conclusion of the reading of
the decree confirming the will, Mr..
well arose and asked the Court to
make an allowance to himself and as
sociates as counsel fees and also to
make an order for the payment from
the corpus of the estate of a sun sufi-
Gent to reimburse his client for all her
expenses and costs, including the pay
OF the expensive experts that had been
called by the c%aveator, and the railroad.
MOTEL and other incidental expenses of
counsel while travelling around in the
trial of the case. He said that he had
been absent from his office at least 100
days in connection with this matter.
and that his associate, Mr.. Pierce. had
spent an equal amount of time away
from his business, and that notwith-
standing this fact their office expenses
had gone on just the same-a fact
which he thought the Court should
take into consideration when the fees
were fixed. He also said that one not
in the case had no idea of the vast
amount of time and energy expended
III ''coaching' the witnesses. His
estimate of his own travelling expenses
was $500. When the attorney began
his argument upon the cost of getting
expert testimony, he was quickly inter
rupted by Judge Voorhees, with these
words: mo, Mr.. Stockwell, we can't
pay experts out of the estate, even
though we might be so Inclined"
Mr.. Beldon addressed the Court at
some length in opposition to the pc
tition of the other side, beginning with
the statement that his client had no
desire to have the Court award him
counsel fees, travelling expenses
or other similar costs, and was just as
determined not to consent TO any
award of that kid for the ~caveator;
surely if the executor of the estate saw
fit to pay his w costs, the Court
ought not to charge the estate with the
costs of the party who had caused all
the needless, expensive and protracted
litigation; they ought to be glad to get
of court without having to pay the
costs of the proponents as "A penalty for
the trouble they had made. He as
serted that the law clearly provided
that it should be the duty of the Court
to place the costs of such litigation
Upon the loser, unless the tfial had de-
veloped "a reasonable ground for the
contest having been instituted, and
vehemently declared that there existed
no such reasonable groundp IN the
present case.
Judge Gaskill continued the argu-
ment, and declared that it was clear to
him that the law never meant to give
parties who contested a will upon snch
himsy preteXt as this will had beeu
contested upon either costs or expenses.
He said that the Court had already
made al order by which the cost. of
printing the testimony-$l550-and the
stenographer's fees-$l280. %; in all
amounting to S3230.54 had been paid
out of the estate; and surely the balance
of contestants costs ought to be paid
by Mrs. Wheaton, and not by the
estate. In closing Judge Gaskill in
sisted that if any allowance was made,
it ought to be a very small one. 1t
was agreed that both sides should sub
nit briefs within ten days, after which
Judge Voorhees, will decide the matter.
hamharIaiu' Stomach and ivar