Norwich bulletin., 1922-11-30
DENIES SETTLING ASIDE
 LUTHER WILL. VERI

' A
 Judge Newei: Jennings has denied the melton to set asido the verdict and for q new trial in the Luther will case, iE which the superior court jury ii New London returned a verdict last week sustaining the will Al estate of about s4o,Oo0 is involved. having been dis posed ot by the will Of Mrs. Augusta Luther, which nieces and ncphers who were cut of. tried to break.
 The following Is Judge Jennings memorandum of decision:
 The claim that the appe!lees nave nc: sustained the burden placed on them as matter of law does not seem to me to be well founded or require any dis cussioR.
 On the question of tIie removal of the question ot the claim of undue in fiuence from the consideration of the jury, the claim of the appellants is Glat the will itself Is so abnormal and un- natural in it's provisions that from the will itself taken in connection with the opportunities for the exercise of un- due influence enjoyed by the Armstrongs and Mrs. Lewis, the jury might prop erly infer the existence Of undue in f1uence.
 Under the decisions in this state quoted by both sides during the trial and argument of this motion. cannot agree with this claim. Take the will itself, for instance. It was drawn in contemplation of Capt. LutherHs pre-de- ceasing his wife. This was practically l sure to happen since he was man 93 years old. and even if he survived her he had ample funds to support him for ! suo1l time as he should survive her. Mrs. Luther had no children: she was I c{r oy,5 1 seems to me to have been singularly 1 free from any obligation to will her l property to anyone. She chose to fulfil ! her husbands wishes in the matter. 4 1 bequest to the ArmstTongs had much 1 more reason behind it than would a be I quest to some distant charitable or edu- cational institution with which the tes- l tatrix had no close personal relations I The Armstrongs must often have put 1 themselves to considerable personal iu- l convenience to accommodate the Lutf- CTS and to take them around in their i automobile; that they apparently did SC 1 willingly and enjoyed the trips is tc 1 their credit. and the fact that they were remembered in Mrs. Luther's will, b5 l the captains desire, is perfectly reas. enable and natural to my mind. l Not only is there no direct evidence
 of the exercise of any undue influence i whatever but at least one bit of evi.
 dence coming from the appellants man.
 ifestly prejudiced witness, Miss Sistare 1 points to a directly contrary conciu.
 sion. I have not the transcript but t1 my recollection serves me, Miss Sistart
 testified that at one time Mrs. Luther
 was very much exercised because sh,
 had heard that Mir. Armstrong had de cided that he could not spend timt
 driving her any longer, and he was go l ing to give it up. Such action on tht part of man who is supposed to bt l plotting and schening to get Mrs. Lu
 ther's property away from dler is abou J as far from what one would expect a! possible
 | Furthermore, under the definitions O undue influence repeated over and ove again in our reports. Mrs. Luther woult seem to be about the most unlikely her
 son to be subject to such influence. Al the testimony indicated that she wa
 Of a strong dominating personality. Tn lSwho!e case of the appellants was base, on her fixed idea from which no arg1 1nert or persuasion could move her l that she had no use for her own rela . tives.
 The motions arc denied