Omaha daily bee., 1910-09-27
JOSEPH NILES GETS ESTATE
Long Litigation Ends in Defeat Of
Brother Samuel.
ST. LOUIS WILL IS DIsCREDITED
Document and Not Sufficient Proof
of Execution aRd COnteRts
Was Not Given.
CFrom a Staff Correspondent }

From a staff Correspondent
LINCOLN. Sept. Special AFTER
many years OF litigation Joseph II. Miles
has won in the Miles Will case The su-
preme court today affirmed the Judgment
OF the district court Of Richardson county,
which was in his favor
The case grew out he will made by
Stephen B. Miles in . which left the
bulk OF a fortune estimated to amount To
ST. 10000 to his son, Joseph H Miles and
which left in trust for Samuel A Miles an
other son, some 500 .0oO from which this son
was TO receive the income during his lie
time When the viii vas filed for probate
Belle Williams. a granddaughter, opposed
its probation and Samuel A. Miles filed a
cross petition setting out that a second
win had been made by his father in st
Louis some years later than the date Of
tias first Will which was made in Rulo in
1855. II was alleged that Joseph IL Miles
~.bo had been named administrator OF MS
fathers estate. hsh concealed the st. Louis
nlil for fraudulent purposes
The district court Of Richardson county
held the evidence was not sufficient TO es-
tablish the existence OF the 81. Louis will
A notion for a new trial was filed. alleging
that new evidence had been discovered
The district judge overruled this motion
and the case came to the supreme court
on the question Of the new evidence The
supreme court reversed the district court
holding that sufficient evidence had been
discovered to warrant the new trial Again
Joseph B. Niles was given verdict and
this verdict has been affirmed. On several
occasions various phases of the case have
been before the supreme court. one trial
being held in the senate chamber at Lin
coin.
Many prominent attorneys were inter
ssted IN the case and appeared for one side
or the ether. Representing the appellants
were John L. Webster, John r. Atwood
Reayts a Reavis I. j. RingOlsky, J. n
Broadly F. NJ. Hail; representing the an
pellees we're T. ]. Mahoney. ]. A c. Ken
nedy, c. Gillispie f. Falcon
syllabus In Case.
The opinion OF the court was written BY
chief Justice Reese.
In the syllabus the court said
The fact, il established by competent
proof that a subsequent will was made rs
mt suIucient OF Itself, ana without some
PROOF OF its actual contents, to snow the
revocation OF a former will. nor would the
proof OF such a tact alone be sufficient To
JUstfry the setting asiue OF the Que probate
former viii, ne alleged subsequent will
ICt being found or produced, nor a verified
-0py thereof presented
an attorney testified that he PREPARED I,
Viii consisting OF two sheets and four nages
to be executed By the proposed restatOr,
mat the instrument was signed by the
testator and Witnessed in his presence Ip
ais testimony he detliled the facts and cir,
eumstances attending its execution inciud-
ing remarks made by himself the testat to1
and the witnesses, but did not know thf
Witnesses and faded to remember thei,
names. Two witnesses testified that rhey
Witnessed the signature Of an alleged vii
| of the same person at the place and About
/ person signing as testat0r said il was hi,
will but they we're not informed OF its con
tents, did not read any part OF H. ana ID
not know what the paper contained rhar H
consisted OF many sheets. forming a Rod,
o. paper nearly half an inch IN tkSckueEs
that there was but one other persyn. asid,
from the alleged testator and the witnesses
IN the room. and that person was who'll,
az known 70 one OF the witnessrsg the ofbei
witness tesufytng 20 a total want OF recul
lection as 70 who the other Prcson was M
whc ther he anew him, neither one bein,
/ introduced 70 him, and both agreeing tina
he dtd not utter a word At az Before m,
signing or while they were Ia tho room
I Held. that these facts faied 10 show tba
the paper there signed. E 80 signed Va,
the one said TO have been written ov m,
attorney. md that there was 3nsuffil ~
nrdOf ot the contents Of tta aliaaerT atsF r.
that the pa Ger Witnessed bv the Ism s.s
sons signing a. Witnesses was ths. fnsfr1f
nent claimed 20 have heen prepared bv IN,
Fhuqruey. or was a will
u The proof af the execution and content
Continues on Third P1se)