OCR Text |
Show DEED iraTRODUCED IH "WILL CONTEST Transfer to Mrs. Holmes of Property by Daughter Point at Issue. Aaollici- ,lai' "t cross-,'a inina t ion of .Mr-, Susanna It. Holme." caia'icl just so fai fonvaiil i osioialay the 1 1 in 1 before Ju.luo liar, .1,1 M. Slepliens ,'f the 'I'hiial ilistricl court of her suit l.i reoover half the osiale of $.Siul.l"n loft t' Wallace SI. Itninsl'nril by his tie. the late houise Grace braiisfoial. ailopte,! ilaiiKhter of Mrs. Holmes. ' Kfl'urt of oouiisol fen- iho ilefense was l.uvaril cstai'lisliin.a that .Mrs. Holmes bad seen f:l lo resaial her ilnnnhtor as i-apa-ble of transaotiiiK business responsibly wherein she lua'self was the beneficiary. As an insiance in point, a ileeil was ln-troiliioe.l ln-troiliioe.l ivhiierehi' the ilausbter transferred trans-ferred to her t'.'Sier mother the Kihtoenth ward s.iuare in the selllemenl of a filial award of $II.IHHI made Mrs. Holmes by the prohate court for care of l lie estate and person of her daughter. ronnsel for Mrs. Holmes had foufibt impure into the allowances receiyed by Mrs. Holmes for services as Kiianlian, holding that the deeree of the probate court in the matter miRlit not be nues-lioned. nues-lioned. Counsel for the defense, however, how-ever, declared that the purpose was not comparison of the amount received to the services rendered in the matter, hut the examination into the maternal attitude nf Mrs. Holmes toward her foster child, counsel oonteiuli'us that il would lie show n that the activities of Mi's. Holmes in be-null' be-null' of her ward were entirely wllhin the raime of services paid for. l! was after the court had permit ted counsel for the defense to proceed on Ibis understanding that the deed mentioned men-tioned was introduced, bavin- been obtained, ob-tained, aocordim; , lo the statement of counsel for the defense, from the person lo whom it was later assigned by Mrs. Holmes. ronnsel for the plaintiff objected ob-jected lo the introduction of the deed and the court asked for an ev pla na i Ion of (be reason for its introduction. "II is offered." said V. W. Hay of counsel coun-sel for the, defense, "to show lliat how. ever Mrs. Holmes may now question the capacitv of her daiiKbtcr to make intelligent intelli-gent disposition of her properly, she did not entertain such (ioubK of the youns woman's intelligent responsibility at the lime of the execution of this deed." The court admitted tile deed to evidence. Mrs. llolmes was still on the witness stand when eourr adjourned. Murine Ilie dai s quesliotiins it was shown by her admissions lliat she received from V.Otl to ? lOi.n a month for her services as miaidiaii for her daughter and as the caretaker ,of her estate, exclusive of the final settlement of SI 1 .000 mentioned. The case will be resumed at lo o'clock this morninu. |