The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-12-19
JURY READY TO HEAR CASE Contest for the Mason
 Estate. LAWYERS RAISE LAW POINTS Court Holds That Wfe's Kiss is
 Not Coercion. Dencaciary of the Document Testifes ss to Death of Testator In kioto, Japan, Last Sep.
 tember.
LAWYERS RAISE LAW POINTS

Mobile, Dec. 1S.- -(SpecfaI.D--After spending all the morning and part of the afternoon in securing the four Ju- TOTS to make up the twenty-four in the Mason will contest from which to pick struck jury" the Probate Court determined that the following will de- eide whether J. Henry Mason, Jr., and his mother may break the will of James Henry Mason. ST., the Mobile retired banker who died in Japan:
 Harry W. Olinger, Emanuel Alvarez, William c. Schnell, George Seifert. George D. Williams, Frank Reiman, Thomas Bobe. William L. Woodruff, John V. Scheurmann. Joseph J. Hughes, Charles A. Cunningham and John c. Pope. Creole.
 The beneficiary under the will suc- ceeded in introducing all the preiini- nary evidence, having the paper pur- porting to be the last will and testa- ment introduced as evidence, over the protest of the attorney for the contest ant to which his attorneys excepted, and rested the case, placing the burden of proof against the validity Of the will upon James Henry Mason. Jr.
 The court reconvened at 2:40 o'clock. Four witnesses for the defendant were examined and the will was offered as part of the evidence, preliminary to
 Judge Williams rendered his decision
 
 the defense on the tender of issue of the trial. Sustaining those lawyers entirely in the fourth count and part of the third. Some time was consumed by both sides for and against these contentious. McAlpine and Robinson for the contestant excepting to the Judges ruling.
 Second Wife Testiaes.
 Mrs. James H. Mason, the second. was the first witness on the stand. On direct examination she testified that she was the widow of the late James Henry Mason, ST.. and that he died in Japan on September 8. last, according to the Japanese calendar, and that MT. Masson left property in Mobile County at his death.
 The cross examination was conduct ed by MT. Robinson. Mrs. Masson said Mir. Mason died in Kioto. Japan, Sep tember 8. last, according to Japanese time He left land and other property in Mobile County, but she was unable to describe the land ana did not recog- nize 1t when the locations were read by Attorney Robinson. She identified the property by the names of occu- pants She said Mir. Mason left $15,- 900 in bonds in the First National Bank and about s20,ooo in the Gallatin Bank of New York, She knew of no other property.
 When she was questioned she swore that she did recall s75,o0 in bonds in the Bank of New York in their joint names at the time of her late husbands death: also between s20.0o0 and $25,000 more in the Mercantile Bank of Balti- more in their names Jointly. but that the $75,oo0 had been given her by Mir. Masson. She did not know of any bonds that may have been on deposit in the City Bank and Trust Company here or of any other money on deposit in Mobile or of any other personal property except what had been named to her.
 Validity of VIII.
 The question as to the will was testi- fled to by Miss Horres and Mrs Walsh, clerks and stenographers of the law firm representing the defense. After other evidence along the line of valid ity MT. Smith said that he desired to introduce a will filed for probate as part of the evidence. This was ob- iected to by other side. The objection was overruled and the will was admit ted. MT. Robinson excepted to the rul- ing.
 After reading the will to the jury Attorney Smith said that he would rest.
 The jury on request of lawyers will be under the rule. but every comfort will be afforded them in some hotel throughout the trial.
 As soon as Judge Williams an nounced his decision on the issues in volved and presented, the attorneys announced what they proposed to show during the trial, Mir. Smith only read ing the will and making a statement of the deceased and his business mat ters and upright character in all his dealings.
 The session was most interesting when the attorneys for the contestant and Mrs Mason, No. 2, locked horns on the question as to whether the kiss of wife constituted coercion so as to effect a legal document Both sides fought hard on this question and after being appealed to, Judge Williams de- cided that it did not.
 Attorney Smith began the statement