Evening Republican, Volume 15, Number 61, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 March 1911 — CONDON WILL BROKEN BY VERDICT OF JURY. [ARTICLE]

CONDON WILL BROKEN BY VERDICT OF JURY.

Case Tried Here Ended With Victory For Plaintiffs—House Divided Against Itself. The attention of the Jasper Circuit court was taken up« from Tuesday until Saturday -with the Condon will case, venued here from Newton co«fhty. The case was remarkable from many standpoints inasmuch as it was a legal battle between eleven heirs of Mrs. David Condon, deceased, who died March 23, 1910, at Goodland, Ind. Mrs. Condon was upward of seventyseven years of age, and in November, prior to her death, executed the will In controversy. She bequeathed to her eldest son, Tfiomas H. Condon, an attorney and oil man, of Parker, Ind., the sum of $200.00. ‘ To each of her five daughters she,gave $500.00. She devised to her son David, who was the youngest child, her home in Goodland. The estate was worth approximately $20,000, and this consisted chiefly of a farm about three miles south of Goodland. After the above bequests, she left to her five sons the balance of the estate, including her son David. Mr. Thomas thinking his sisters had not been •treated fairly in the disbursement of the estate, joined with them to set the the will aside, on the grounds of undue influence and the unsoundness of mind of his mother. Mrs. J. J. Garrity, one at the daughters, formerly of Mt. Ayr, now living in Chicago, refused to join, and became a defendant. The other defendants were as follows: Dennis Condon, a member of the Chicago police force, John Condon, a saloonkeeper, now of Momence, 111., David Condon, of Chicago, Michael Condon, of Goodland, and Mrs. James Condon, of Chicago. James Condon

died after his mother and his widow was made a party defendant. The daughters joining as plaintiffs with Thomas Condon were Mrs. Mary E. Garvin, Mrs. Margaret Eman, Catharine Dwyer, all of Chicago, and Mrs. Johanna McGraw, of Fowler. Ari ranged on the side of the plaintiff were J. W. Newton, from Winchester, Ipd., and Halleck & Leopold, of Rensselaer. On behalf at the defendants were Elmore Barce, of Fowler, and W. H. Parkinson, of Rensselaer. The case was ably tried and argued, and much favorable comment was heard con ceming it. Mr. Newton’s crossexamination was very able, and Mr. Barce’s argument to the jury is worthy o£ comment, as is also the arguments of Messrs. Parkinson and Newton. The case went to the Jury Saturday evening, and after deliberating about two "hours, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, on the ground of undue influence. In event the will stands broken, the estate will be administered according to law, each of the heirs receiving an equal portion. The defendants’ attorneys stated that they will file motion for a new trial, and if they dq, the same will be hear>f on the first day of the next term.