Evening Republican, Volume 23, Number 136, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 June 1920 — KENNEDY WILL CASE SETTLED [ARTICLE]

KENNEDY WILL CASE SETTLED

LOCAL ATTORNEYS VICTORS IN NEWTON COUNTY’S MOST NOTED WILL TRIAL. The Kennedy will case which has been in progress of trial in the Newton Circuit Court for the entire week was terminated Friday when the jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiffs. This case has attracted more attention than any other will contest which has been tried for many years in that county because of the prominence of the parties thereto. Sarah A. Kennedy, deceased, a former resident of Morocco left a will and two deeds by which practically her entire estate was devised to two daughters, Nellie Kennedy Chizum and Frieda Kennedy. In addition to this she conveyed by deed two very valuable farms to the same two daughters. Mrs. Kennedy was one of the wealthiest persons in Newton County and had a family of nine children and one adopted child. The suit was instituted by Kinder Kennedy, Earl Kennedy, Sam Kennedy, Ruby Kennedy, Grace Hunter, Bertha Whaley and Emmett Kennedy, against Frieda Kennedy and Nellie Kennedy Chizum, and the adopted child. By the complaint plaintiffs charged that the will was invalid because of unsoundness of mind of the testatrix, that Nellie Kennedy Chizum had exerted an undue influence over testatrix, that the will unduly executed and the will was obtained by the fraud practiced upon the testatrix by Nellie Kennedy Chizum. The plaintiffs were represented by Attorneys John A. Dunlap and Cope J. Hanley of this city and M. E. Graves of Morocco, and the defendants were represented by Attorneys Emery Sellers of'Monticello, Wm. Darroch and Hume L. Sammonds of KAtland. Many witI nesses were called by both sides and testimony introduced bearing upon each of the plaintiff’s contentions. One of the most interesting features of the case was the circumstances connected with the execution of the will, defendants contending that Mrs. Chizum had no knowledge of the execution of the will until a few days prior to the death of' Mrs. Kennedy, while the plaintiffs proved by one of the witnessi es, and a subscriber to the will that I she was present at the time of its execution about one year before the death»of Mrs. Kennedy, and were able to prove that she had conducted practically all the business affairs of the deceased during ■ her lifetime. | Inasmuch as extensive preparation 1 had been made by counsel for both । sides the suit was an elaborate ex- । position of the laws which control । the execution and contest of wills I and it developed into an interesting contest not only between counsels but also the parties themselves.