OCR Text |
Show things was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, tho supreme court says, In upholding the judgment revoking the will. In support of their contention that Miller was unduly influenced by his second wife in making tho will which slighted them, the children testified that the second Mrs. Miller came to visit thern and their father soon after the death of the first Mrs. Miller, and that upon these trips, five months after af-ter the death of Mrs. Miller No. 1, Mrs. Miller No. 2. that was to be, appeared at the Miller breakfast table one morning appareled In some of Mrs. Miller No. l's clothing. This pained them exceedingly, they testified, but despite thlg Mrs. Miller No. 2. that was to be, when she finished her visit and left, took with her some of the clothing of their dead mother. was substituted as administratrix. On May 6 of the same year Margaret Miller Mil-ler and the other children of Miller by his first wife attacked the -will, in a suit filed in tho Third district court, on the ground of undue Influence exercised ex-ercised by the second wife. The case was tried before Judge Morse without a jury, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, defend-ants, from which an appeal was taken tak-en and the supreme court reversed the judgment. The case was tried the second time before Judge Ritchie, with a jury, and judgment entered in favor of the children, from which the defendant de-fendant appealed, partlv on general grounds and partlv on the ground that evidence excluded" at the first trial as being too remote was admitted at the second trial Another contention was that the testimony of some of the witnesses wit-nesses for' the plaintiffs was merely their conclusions. None of these UNDUE IHFLUENCB WAS ; USED OH THOS. MILLER i This Is Opinion of Supercm Court in a Noted Will Case. ; That Thomas .Miller was under un- due Influence when, in lsCiu, he made ;j a will leaving all bis property, esti- 'j mated at $17,000 to $.".0,000. to his second wife, and cut his children by his first wife off wit.iout anything, is 1 upheld by tho supienie court in an A opinion handed down Monday. The if opinion, written by Chief Justice t Straup and concurred in by his as- ' sociates. means that the children by i the first wile will share In tlie estate, Miller wedded his first wife in Scot- j" land, but subsequently moved to New York City. There were five children by the first wife, who died In New York City ia ISS.V The sauio year Miller reman led. His second wife was then. a resident of Utah and had just se- V cured a. divorce from a former bus- f band. After remainiug In Now York ' City a short time, the Millers came to Salt Lake City, where Miller in- f vested approximately $4,000 In the t silk business and lost It. He then en- Ej gaged in the brass foundry business and picked up considerable money. In 1S90, when he was about f.5 years j old, ho mado his will, leaving all his t property to his second wife and cut- ting his children by his former wife 1 h off without anything In September h of 110)1 he died, leaving property val- ft ued at from $17,000 to $10,000. Ir March of 1905 his s?cond wife die and Elizabeth Livingston, her slsU |