Error to the Common Pleas of Somerset County to review a judgment for defendants in a feigned issue to try the validity of the will of Elizabeth Keiser.

The assignments of error were based upon the admission of certain offers of evidence by the defendants, upon the portions of the charge inclosed in brackets, and upon the answers to points, as stated below.

On the trial, defendants offered to show that Josiah Poor-baugh, a witness on the stand, and Hertz Keiser, husband of testatrix, “were in business for many years, and that witness’s opportunities for becoming intimately and thoroughly acquainted with Mrs. Keiser were very numerous; and that by reason thereof he did become so acquainted, and that they were very intimate and on the best of terms for a long period; and that he has a complete and thorough knowledge of her mental capacity.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to that portion of the foregoing proposition wherein it is proposed to show that the witness was in business with Hertz Keiser.

Objection overruled and evidence admitted. First assignment of error.

The following question was put to the same witness:

“Q. Had you rare and few or many and good opportunities of becoming acquainted with the condition of his wife, Mrs. Keiser?”

Objected to that the question is too specific, and that it ought to be in a general sense.

Objection overruled and question admitted. Second assignment of error.

The defendants’ counsel proposed to show by the same witness the condition ef Mrs. Keiser’s mind, her acts, and her declarations up to the time of her death.

Objected to as irrelevant.

Objection overruled and offer admitted. Third assignment of error.

The defendants’ counsel proposed to prove by the same witness that at the time of Hertz Keiser’s last visit with his wife to Berlin, in the fall of 1884, and in her presence, Mr. Keiser asked the witness if he knew where he kept his papers and where his secret drawer was, and that Poorbaugh replied that he did not. Keiser then said: “The first time you come over I will show it to you.” Mrs. Keiser then spoke up and said: “Tes: and if anything happens, come quick, because they are on the watch to grab.”

Objected to as irrelevant.

Objection overruled and evidence admitted. Fourth assignment of error.

Miss Lizzie Poorbaugh being on the stand, defendants’ counsel asked her:

“Q. Did you ever hear her (Mrs. Xeiser) express an intention or desire as to what should become of her property as much as eight or ten vears ago ?”

“A. I did.”

Objected to as incompetent; that her intentions eight or ten years ago could not govern now.

By the Court: “The evidence is pertinent only as it bears on the question of undue influence.”

Objection overruled and evidence admitted. Fifth assignment of error.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress