The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-10-27
GOrdOn-Munn Case Is Nearing
the End.
Arguments in the Case Being
Heard This Afternoon.
MIR. DANA'S OUTLINE.
Questions Which the Jury Will
Have to Answer.
Many Witnesses Are Called in
Rebuttal.

The evidence is all in in the pro-
longed Munn-Gordon case in the dis
trict court. New witnesses and the
recall of others began last evening IN
rebuttal of testimony for the defense
continued during the forenoon today.
The jury and witnesses were ex-
cused an hour before noon and the
remainder of the time consumed in a
Strengthening out of the case as to
just what is the essence of the trial.
The question as to whether or not
the case is properly a jury case at all
came up today for the second time
during the trial. The first time it
came up in regard to whether or not
the counsel would be allowed to sub
NIT questions to the jury at the COM
pletion of the case The Judge held
at that time that the jury had been
called to assist and advise him and
that it was the duty of the court only
to submit such questions to the jury
as he thought fit. The question arose
this morning in much the same man
ner with much the same settlement.
Questions for the Jury.
For the assistance of the attorneys
in completing their case and argu-
ment Judge Dana indicated to them
what the questions he intended to sub
NIT to the jury would be.
The first one indicated will be:
'Was Mr.. G. S. Gordon of sound mind
at the time these deeds were exc
cuted %
The second: WAS the execution of
those deeds obtained by fraud %
The third: WAS the execution of
those deeds obtained by undue in
fiuence?''
The Judge further announced that
he was considering a fourth question
like the following: eff you answer
the three questions in the affirmative.
you will state fully in what the fraud
and undue influence consist"
Plaintiffs counsel argued for divers
amendments to these questions such
as separating the two deeds as differ
ent causes of action in that they were
not acknowledged at the same time
and asking separate questions con-
corning them, but the Judge held to
his original plan of making them
general questions answerable in
diligently by the jury.
"I am not going to split any hairs in
this matter" he said. "The court is
willing to take the responsibility of
asking the questions as a whole"
The rebuttal put on by the plaintiff
was tedious process due to the scores
OF objections offered by the defense on
the ground that they were not properly
questioning, but rather introducing al
together new testimony. which objec-
lions were for the most part sustained
by the court. The full quota OF ques-
lions were asked in all cases and may
be expected to enlighten the jury on
the answers predicted, although they
never were uttered.
Gooseberry Hill Farm.
Ed Arnold was placed on the stand to
show that the property which 1t was
testified Mr.. Gordon had gone to buy
had never been for sale. DR.. L. H. Mum,
the son-in-law, was used to tell of the
Texas grocery stock which Mr.. Gordon
had forgotten he had. The doctor was
used also to strike the first blow at the
identity OF the farm which witnesses
said Mr.. Gordon said he gave his wife
calling it the Gooseberry Hill farm. The
defense had alluded to the farm of 120
acres near the cemetery to which the
deed is under litigation as the Goose
berry Hill Farm. Mrs. Mum, the plain
tiff, testified also that the farm had
never been spoken of by that name. as
did others. and it is apparently devolved
upon the defense to show that the name
was a pet name kept very secret.
j. C. Gordon Testif1es.
J. C. Gordon, brother of the deceased
and owner of the old Copeland hotel,
was placed on the stand to testify in
regard to the allegation Of the defense
that Mrs Mum never cared for her