Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1906-11-15

means that the Will or Dean InOma'
Mackin will be set aside, and the prop
erty distributed among all the heirs
The decision of the jury came only af
ter long fight in the jury room, dur
i ing which the vote stood IL to 1, anC
the one juror had declared that he
never would give in TO the verdict OF
the majority. This was the situation
this morning, after the jury had spent
the afternoon and night considering
the case. A message was sent .tC
Judge Gest this morning, stating that
the vote stood II TO 1, and the one
man declared he would not give in
and asking that the court discharge
the jury Judge Gest instructed the
jury TO continue it's deliberations until
2 O'Clock this afternoon, when he
would decide what action to take.
Shortly after noon an agreement was
reached. and the verdict was returned,
and the jury discharged.
End of Long Case.
| The returning of the verdict ends for
the present the long litigation which
| has occupied the attention of the cir
cult court since the opening of the
term. Sept. II, nearly nine weeks.
| Whether there will be further litiga-
ton in the nature of an appeal. or of
subsidiary litigation, remains to be
seen. Much depends on the strength
OF the parties interested.
History of Case.
The Mackin will contest IS in many
respects the most remarkable case ever
tried in the Rock Island county circuit
court. In fact, it is questionable wheth-
| er Il will case in any county in the
state has rivaled it in the length of
time required in its disposition, in the
many novel features involved and in
the various peculiar phases developed
| by the evidence 1t began in extremely
hot weather, so hot indeed that post
ponement was taken Sept. II to the
next day because of the oppressiveness
of the atmosphere. 1t closed with the
thermometer ranging below the freeZ-
ing point.
Difficulties During the Trial.
During the progress of the case one
of the parties, Mrs. Catherine McArdle,
a sister of the testator. died. necessi-
tating a postponement for a few days.
law of Hon William McEniry required
another adjournment. During the
course of the argument Judge Gest be-
came indisposed and an adjournment
was taken from last Thursday noon I'M
til Monday afternoon of this week
Notwithstanding the long and oontinu-
Gus service not one of the jury has
been i'll or failed to be on hand when
the hearing was called. The chief
counsel on both sides, William Nc
Entry, S. r. Kenworthy, John T. Ken
worthy, NJ. NJ. Sturgeon, and Hon. Will |
liam Jackson, have at various times |
during the trial been under the wealth |
er, notably the latter two at the time
of making their closing arguments. and |
NJ. J. McEniry has suffered with a |
wrenched ankle due to a street car ac-
cident The case withal has been tried |
with less acrimony and wrangling tnan
might be expected from the personnel
of the attorneys engaged and the feel
ing evidently entertained by the parties
litigant.
Great Amount of Evidence.
The case has been marked by the
immense amount of evidence introduc-
ed on both sides, and it is in this re-
speet, as well as in point of time the
cause celebre' of this court. The only
cases which approach it in both these
are the storm drain case
and the Starkey damage case, the for
mer occupying about five weeks and
involving about 1000 pages of testi-
nony, and the latter requiring about
-hree weeks in it's trial and covering
about 400 pages of evidence. AS
heretofore stated, the present case has
been on trial over eight weeks and the
mass of evidence is greatly in excess
If the larger of the two cases above {
Another matter of note is the
ength of some of the Witnesses testi-
nony The testimony of several of the
witnesses reaches beyond a hundred
ypewritten pages.
In Great Detail.
Another feature of note is the great ,
ength and detail of the hypothetical
uestions propounded, the one by the !
being over 10 pages in ,
ength and that of the proponents about !
light pages, the combined question COW I
ring over Is typewriter pages of
old matter and involving from the
iewpoint of both parties a complete
esume of the evidence as claimed by
hem respectively.
The proponents called A witnesses
4 their main case and is witnesses in 7
ebuttal, the contestants calling 81 in \
hief. recalling their four expert wit {
esses after the testimony of Mrs. s
,eam was excluded. and propoundine