iicntub (four! of %mn\s. 
MARTHA E. PIATT, Executrix of 
Jacob W. Piatt, deceased, 
versus 
JOHN H. PIATT, et al 
Appeal from 
BOONE CIRCUIT COURT. 
ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. 
JOHNSTON & CARROLL, of Counsel for Plaintiff, 
Marshall & Hefley, Prs., S. W. cor. Tine & 2d Sts., Cincinnati. KENTUCKY COURT OE APPEALS. 
MARTHA E. PIATT, Executrix 
J. W. PIATT, Deceased, 
versus 
JOHK II. PIATT, et Al. 
' i 
Appeal from 
Boone Circuit 
Court. 
ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. 
“In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
“Ghost, Amen! I, Jacob W. Piatt, formerly of Cincinnati, 
“Ohio, but now of Federal Hall, Boone County, Kentucky, 
“ being of sound and disposing mind and memory, and desir- 
“ous of settling my worldly affairs, do make and publish my 
“ last will and testament, as follows, to-wit: 
“First. It is my will that all my just debts and funeral 
“ charges be fully paid. 
“ Second. It is my will that my wife, Martha E. Piatt, 
“shall have and enjoy in all my estate and property, whether 
“ in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, or elsewhere, that portion thereof 
“to which she is entitled by the laws of the several States 
“wherein said property is situated. 
“ Third. I give and bequeath to my daughter, Caroline C. 
“Jenkins, of Baltimore, the only surviving child of my mar- 
“ riage with Caroline Canfield, for and during her natural 
“ life, a lot of ground, with the improvements thereon, thirty 
“feet square, on the south side of Hew Street, about sixty 
“ feet east of Sycamore Street, in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
“whereon is erected a three-story brick dwelling house: 
“After the death of my said daughter Caroline, her children, 
“or other issue, if any such shall survive her, to take the 2 
“same in fee simple: But in case she shall die without chil- 
dren or issue surviving her, then said lot, with the appurten- 
“ ances, is to go into the hulk of my estate, and be disposed 
“ of as hereinafter provided; said lot and appurtenances being 
“ all the portion I intend to give my said daughter. 
“Fourth. I give and bequeath to my son, John II. Piatt, 
“ the only surviving child of my marriage with Harriet Lan- 
“man, my entire Law Library, now in his possession, in the 
“ city of Cincinnati, Ohio; this being all I intend to give to 
“ my said son. 
“Fifth. I give and devise to my wife, Martha E. Piatt, 
“and to her successor or successors, as hereinafter provided, 
“all the rest and residue of my estate, real, personal and 
“mixed, in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, or elsewhere; with all 
“the rents, profits and issues thereof; in trust, nevertheless, 
“for the maintenance, education and endowment of our seven 
“children, Mary Arabella Piatt, Benjamin M. Piatt, Charles 
“D. Piatt, Eugenia W. Piatt, Louisa M. Piatt, Jacob W. 
“Piatt and Edward C. Piatt, or the survivors of them, in 
“equal proportions, share and share alike; with power to sell 
“and convey such parts of said real estate as may he neces- 
sary to defray the expense of educating our said children, 
“but for no other purpose; and that she and her successors, as 
“hereinafter provided, shall have full power and authority to 
“apportion and set off,by deed or otherwise, the said estate to 
“our said children, as they shall come of lawful age, according 
“to her or their sense of justice and equality; the homestead 
“farm, at Federal Hall, to be set off to one of our sons, who 
“shall choose the occupation of a farmer; and until the time 
“for making such disposition of said farm shall come, it is 
“ my will that it should be used and occupied as a homestead 
“and residence for my family, where my wife may reside, and 
“ my children may be brought up free from the contaminating 
“ influences of towns and cities. 
“Sixth. In order to the better execution of this my will, 
“ I hereby constitute and appoint my said wife the guardian 
“ of our said seven children, with full power to do in their 
“behalf any and all acts which may lawfully be done by 
“guardians appointed by Courts having jurisdiction of such 
“ matters. 3 
“Seventh. Should my said wife marry or die before the 
“objects of this trust are accomplished, it is my will that her 
“ relations as trustee of my estate, guardian of my children, 
“and executor of this my will, shall cease, and the Rev. 
“ George A. Carrel, Bishop of Covington, is hereby chosen 
“ and appointed to take upon himself the trust, guardianship, 
“and execution of my will, as aforesaid: and, in the event of 
“the death, neglect or refusal of the said Carrel to accept 
“said trust and guardianship, it is my will that the Courts 
“having jurisdiction of the subject in the several States 
“wherein my property is situated, shall make such appoint- 
“ merits of trustees, guardians and administrators, as maybe 
“proper for the purpose of carrying into effect the purposes 
“of this my will. 
“Eighth. I hereby constitute and appoint my faithful and 
“beloved wife, Martha E. Piatt, executrix of this my last will 
“and testament; and I hereby revoke and annul all other and 
“former wills by me made, and publish this as my only true 
“last will and testament. 
“ In witness whereof, I hereto fix my seal and subscribe my 
“name, in the presence of Charles O’Brien, Benjamin M. 
“Piatt, jun., and William Johnston, this nineteenth day of 
“May, in the year of our Lord, 1857. 
“Signed, sealed and published, as the last' 
“will and testament of Jacob W. Piatt, in 
“the presence of us, who, at his request and 
“in his presence, and in the presence of 
“each other, have hereto subscribed our 
“names as witnesses. 
“JACOB W. PIATT. 
[Seal.] 
“William Johnston, 
“Ben. M. Piatt, Jr., 
“Charles O’Brien.” 
Thus runs the last will and testament of Jacob W. Piatt; 
and the question now before the Court is, Whether this is his 
valid last will and testament. 
And this involves another question, Whether the testator 
was of sound mind when he executed this will. 4 
I. 
In the contest of a will, the mere opinions of witnesses, 
that the testator was insane, or deficient in capacity to make 
a will, are conclusive of nothing. The witnesses must state 
the facts and circumstances—the words spoken, and the acts 
done, by the testator—on which their opinions are founded? 
and it is the province of the Jury, or of the Court, in view of 
all the proofs, to form their own opinion of the testator’s 
capacity: 
Whitenack vs. Stryker, 1 Green’s Chancery R., 8; Harri- 
son vs. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. R., 580; Harrison vs. Rowan, 
3 Wash. C. C. R., 587; Sloan vs. Maxwell, 2 Green’s Ch’y R., 
563; Stevens vs.Vancleve, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 262; Potts et al. 
vs. House, 6 Georgia R., 324; Duffield vs. Robeson, 2 Harring- 
ton, 375-385; Clark vs.Ohio, 12 Ohio R., 483; Pool vs. Rich- 
ardson, 3 Mass., 330; Needham vs. Ide, 5 Pickering, 510; Gib- 
son vs. Gibson, 9 Yerger, 329; Martin vs. Teague, 2 Speers, 266; 
Reed’s Will, 2 B. Monroe, 79; McDaniel’s Will, 2 J. J. Marshall, 
337; 1 Jarman on Wills, pages 78, 79; 3 Starkie on Evidence, 
1707, Note 2. 
This rule of law accords so well with common sense, and 
is so well sustained by authority, that it might seem useless 
to say one word by way of illustration; but, as it will be re- 
verted to frequently in the course of the argument, it may be 
proper to make a few observations upon it. It is a rule ap- 
plicable to every contest in a Court of justice; but in cases 
affecting the soundness, or unsoundness, of the human mind, 
it applies with peculiar power. Witnesses must give facts— 
Courts must give opinions. 
The weakest person, who possesses a sense of moral obli- 
gation, can make a statement of facts; while the question 
wdiether a person is sane or insane, is often too recondite for 
the most skillful physician to determine. At last, one’s 
capacity to transact business must be decided, experimentally, 
by reference to the manner in which he conducts it. The 
man who manages his business with caution, sagacity and suc- 
cess, must be taken to have capacity for business, whatever 
may be his eccentricities, and whatever the opinions of wit- 
nesses may be as to whether he is crazy or not. The in- 5 
stances must be stated wherein he was led by insane delusion 
to acts of folly—wherein he mismanaged his business because 
his understanding had failed—wherein he was defrauded of 
his property for a want of a just appreciation of its value— 
wherein he disinherited a child because, through dotage> 
he had forgotten there was such a child—wherein his weak 
mind was overpowered by a stronger mind so as to destroy 
his free agency—wherein he gave his property to strangers, 
believing, through insane delusion, that his own chidren were 
bastards—wherein he behaved himself like a maniac or an 
imbecile and violated the known laws of his character. 
If we do not adhere to this rule, we are at sea, enveloped 
in darkness, without a star to guide us. 
In a city like Cincinnati, where human life is so strangely 
diversified—where four different languages are currently 
spoken—where four medical colleges, and five schools of 
physic, teach adverse theories—where twenty denominations 
of Christians, and tw~o denominations of Jews, teach conflict- 
ing doctrines—where half a dozen sects of infidels dispute 
the best mode of getting along without any religion at all— 
where twenty newspapers advocate an infinity of irreconcila- 
ble notions, and where free discussion run mad holds forth on 
all days of the week, on free thought, free labor, free terri- 
tory, free trade, free love, and every other free thing that im- 
agination, in her giddiest mood, ever conceived of—it can not 
be, in the nature of things, but that one portion of society 
should deem another portion crazy; and it would require no 
great effort, if we should receive the mere opinions of wit- 
nesses, to prove that the best of us were insane. 
There ought to be an exception made here. There is, in 
every community, a nice man; not necessarily honest or sin- 
cere, but intensely decent, and always on his good behavior; 
a man who, from very dullness, seems to be profound—always 
grave, and never tired being wise. This man is never sus- 
pected of insanity. But the man of genius, who looks 
through the follies of mankind, and speaks the truth too 
truly—who, when he sees the leading humbug of the day, 
inflated with the breath of false applause, swelling into a 
mountain, thrusts into it the spear of Ithuriel—the man of 
genial spirit, who thoughtlessly rollicks and jests and laughs 6 
with his friends—the philosopher who, like Solomon, finds 
by experience that “in much wisdom there is much grief,” 
and like Solomon, for the while, “gives himself to madness 
and folly”—hut, more than all, the man of keen and wither- 
ing sarcasm, like the testator, who, regardless of the opinions 
of mankind, says what he thinks in strong, and sometimes 
extravagant, language: all these are so often above, or below, 
or beyond, the comprehension of the masses, that they may 
easily be proved insane, if you will take the mere opinions of 
witnesses, without requiring them to state the acts which 
were done, and the words which were spoken, and under 
what circumstances, from which they formed their opinions. 
It often turns out, as will be shown in this case, that when 
the witness comes to place his opinions and the facts from 
which he formed them side by side, instead of proving the 
testator insane they prove the witness ignorant. Again, 
it often happens, as will also be apparent in this case, that 
witnesses form opinions from what others have told them— 
and, from ignorance of the law of evidence, swear to those 
opinions with as clear a conscience as if they were facts 
within their own personal knowledge. 
There is no safe rule but that laid down in the law, to 
require the facts to be stated, and allow the Court or Jury to 
form such opinion as the facts may warrant.. The wisdom of 
history stands not on the bare assertion of the historian, but 
on the facts which he relates. All historians have felt this. 
When the Babylonish king was punished with the insane 
belief that lie was a beast, the historian does not content 
himself with informing us, as a matter of opinion, that Neb- 
uchadnezzar was a monomaniac, and believed himself an ox, 
but he gives us the facts as to the effects of his malady. He 
informs us that he was driven out from the habitations of 
men—that he ate grass like an ox—that his body was wet 
with the dews of heaven, till his hair became like eagle’s 
feathers and his nails like bird’s claws. 
So, too, in the account given us, in the Gospels, of a demo- 
niac. The Evangelist does not merely tell us he was a mad- 
man, possessed of devils. lie tells us that he was “ exceed- 
“ingly fierce, so that no man might pass that way; that he 
“had often been bound with fetters of iron, and brake'them 7 
“asunder—that he wear no clothes; but day and night was 
“ among the tombs, crying and cutting himself with stones.” 
Let us follow this safe old rule, and stand by the facts. 
II. 
Where persons are called to aid in the preparation, and 
witness the execution, of a will, such persons have a greater 
responsibility upon them, are more likely to direct their atten- 
tion to the true condition of the testator’s mind, than others; 
and more reliance ought to he placed on their testimony than 
that of ordinary observers: 
Whitenackvs. Stryker, 1 Green’s Ch’y R.,8; Sloan vs. Max- 
well, 2 Green’s Ch’y II., 563; Harrison vs. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. 
C. R., 580; Stevens vs. Vancleve, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 262; Duf- 
jield vs. Robeson, 2 Harrington, 375; Turnbull vs. Gibbons, 2 
Zabrisea, 133; Pool et al. vs. Richardson, 3 Mass., 330; Ex 
parte Holyland, 11 Vesey, Jur., 11; Gaskell vs. Harman, 11 
Vesey, Jur., 494; 3 Starkie on Evidence, 1707, Note 2; 1 Jar- 
man on Wills, 72, 73. 
This principle of the law is also fully sustained by authority 
and accords with the common conscience and understanding 
of mankind. The making of a will is always a subject of 
serious consideration: but when one makes his will in his 
last illness, it is doubly serious. The mind, whether we will 
or not, enters into a train of thought which does, not belong 
to the every-day concerns of life. The witness involuntarily 
says to himself: “I am engaged in a responsible, a solemn 
“ duty. This man is about to make a final disposition of his 
“property, according to his sense of what is best for his fam- 
“ily. If he be of sound mind, he, of all others, knows what 
“is best, and has a right to do what he pleases with his own. 
“I am to witness this solemn act to-day; and, in a few days 
“hence, I shall be called on, in a Court of Probate, to put 
“my testimony on record, that this man is of sound mind— 
“ that he knows what he is doing, and is doing it freely. The 
“validity or invalidity of this will may turn on my testimony. 
“Justice to my friend, who has called me to his aid—justice 
“to his wife and children, whose fortunes may be affected by 
“this act—justice to the Court, wherein this will is to he 
“proved—and, above all, justice to myself, as an honest man, 8 
“require that I should notice carefully whether this man is in 
“a condition of mind to make a rational disposition of his 
“property.” So reasoning, no honest man could-be a party 
to such a transaction unless he believed the testator to be of 
sound mind. 
In this case, substantially, there were four witnesses, 
though but three of them subscribed their names to the 
will. Charles O’Brien was there, by accident, on other 
business. He was called in without knowing for what 
purpose; so that it is not pretended that he scanned the 
testator’s mind with reference to the future consequences of 
making a will, or that he judged of his capacity by any other 
test than that he conversed on matters of business and mat- 
ters of religion as he formerly did, and that the witness 
observed no change in him. Hot so, as to the other three. 
They all knew perfectly well what was to be done; and, if 
they are to be believed} not one of them would have per- 
formed the part he did, if he had doubted the testator’s 
capacity. The venerable father had gone, the day before, to 
Cincinnati for an attorney to draft the will. This, and this 
alone, was his business. As an honest man, he would not 
have undertaken this task for his son if he had doubted his 
capacity. What were his opportunities of knowing the con- 
dition of his mind? lie had been with him several weeks 
during his suffering from the wound in his knee. He had 
visited him once in the meanwhile; and now, he had been 
with him constantly for a week, settling some important 
accounts: so that he had the fullest opportunity of testing 
his capacity. But his own words are most expressive. “At 
“the time he made his will, I had been there a week, I think. 
“ During that period we were engaged making a settlement. 
“ The settlement was closed, I think, on the 21st of May. * 
“* * * I considered him in a situation to do business. I 
“would not, of course, have settled with him, if I had thought 
“he did not know what he was at. I considered him as capa- 
’“ble of doing business as he had ever been. * * * We 
“settled a very important account, and he appeared to know 
“all about it. * * * He was in his right mind; or, as 
“I stated before, if I had thought he was not in his right 
“mind, it would have made an impression on jny mind, that 9 
“ I would have interfered. I thought he was in a sound dis- 
posing mind.” Here is testimony within the rule of law. 
The witness states the facts from which he formed his opin- 
ion and the opinion side by side. 
A3 to Benjamin M. Piatt, junior, he lived, at this time, 
within a mile of the testator, and was with him almost daily; 
not as idle spectator, but making himself useful. He was 
with him, from the time he was wounded to the time of his 
death, more than any other man; conversed with him by day 
and watched with him at night more than any other man. 
The testator talked with him freely and frequently about 
business, and about the practice of the law for which he was 
preparing himself; and, with the freedom of a near kinsman, 
gave him his advice and examined him on his studies. He 
watched with the testator the night before the will was made, 
and conversed with him about making the will in the morn- 
ing. The testator informed him he was going to make his 
will that day—that Mr. Johnston had come there to draft 
it, and asked him to stay and be a witness. When he in- 
formed the testator that he must go home, he requested him 
to return in the evening in time to witness the will. He did 
return before the draft was completed, saw the testator read 
over the rough draft and make the alterations he desired: 
and when it was engrossed, he saw him read it again and 
heard him declare, as he returned it to the draftsman, that it 
was all right—saw him call the witnesses around him, and, 
in their presence, execute the will. Here, then, are some of 
the facts from which this witness formed his opinion of the 
condition of the testator’s mind, and the result is thus stated 
by him with truthful simplicity: “It is my belief that, at the 
“time of the execution of this will, Jacob W. Piatt was of 
“sound mind and disposing memory. I thought so at that 
“time, or I could not have consented to sign my name, or 
“to have appeared at all as an attesting witness to the will.” 
The draftsman of the will is the other subscribing witness; 
hut, for certain reasons, his testimony must pass without 
commentary, further than this: that, having, according to the 
testimony of the other witnesses, received the instructions 
from the testator—drawn up a rough draft, and submitted it 
for inspection and correction—engrossed the instrument, after 10 
it Lad been read and revised by the testator—submitted the 
engrossed draft for a second reading and inspection by the 
testator, and, after he had pronounced it all right, and exe- 
cuted it, then signed his name as a witness: after all this, if 
he erred in his judgment of the condition of the testator’s 
mind, it must have been the result of incorrigible dullness. 
But did these witnesses, who were present and took a part 
in making this will, know enough of the previous life, habits, 
peculiarities and general character, of the testator, to make 
them competent judges of the condition of his mind at this 
time? To judge whether one’s mind has undergone changes, 
the witness ought to be acquainted with its natural, original 
types in its normal condition. He is a bad witness to prove 
whether a landmark has been removed, who does not know 
where it originally stood. The minds of men are not all 
wrought on the same model. Hor is any one mind exactly 
balanced on itself, so as to turn uniformly round the same 
center. Every man is, to some extent, eccentric; every mind 
has something peculiar to itself, by which the student of 
phrenology distinguishes it from other minds. These normal 
peculiarities must be known in order to give a rational judg- 
ment whether the mind is shaken from its bearings, or drawn 
by disturbing causes from its natural motion. Hone but the 
intimate acquaintances of the man can possess the requisite 
knowledge for such a task. 
It is worthy of observation at this point, that among those 
who were present, by the testator’s own choice, to aid in pre- 
paring and executing this will, there is not one man with 
whom he had not been acquainted for eighteen years; nor 
one man who did not know him thoroughly. 
If any three men ought to have known the testator better 
than others, they were these three. Ilis father, Benjamin M. 
Piatt, senior, who had watched his movements from the hour 
when lie first opened his eyes on the light till the hour when 
he closed them in death; his kinsman, Benjamin M. Piatt, 
junior, a well-educated, observing and intelligent young man, 
who had been his student, his familiar friend and his nurse; 
and his legal adviser, who had often times struggled with 
him in the conflicts of the legal profession, and often been 
closeted with him in consultation on professional business. 11 
The subscribing witnesses, say the books, are placed by 
law around the testator, to guard him against imposition and 
to judge of his capacity—and their testimony is not to be 
lightly set aside. 
One reflection more: The testimony of the subscribing 
witnesses, being directed to the exact point of time at which 
the will was executed, gives it an additional importance; and 
this leads us directly to the consideration of the third point 
in the case. 
III. 
Wherever the capacity of a testator to make a will is 
called in question, the condition of his mind at the time the 
will was executed is the material and turning point of the 
inquiry. If he was of sound mind at that particular time, 
it is conclusive of the validity of the will, so far as it is 
atfected by the question of capacity, no matter what his 
condition of mind may have been before or after: 
Whitenack vs. Stryker, 1 Green's Ch’y R., 8; Harrison vs. 
Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. R., 580; Stevens vs. Vancleve, 4 Wash. 
C. C. R., 262; Duffield vs. Robeson, 2 Harrington, 375; Single- 
ton’s Will, 8 Dana, 317; Jarman on Wills, 'page 65; Cartwright 
vs. Cartivright, 1 Rhillips, 100; Williams on Executors (2d Am. 
Ed.), 17; Swinburn, pt. 2, sec. 3, pi. 3; Hall vs. Warren, 9 Ve- 
sey, 619; Brook vs. Lockett, 4 Howard (Miss.), 459; Clark vs. 
Fisher, 1 Paige, 171; Jackson vs. Vandeusen, 5 Johnson, 144; 
Boyd vs. Eby, 8 Watts, 66; Kinlock vs. Palmer, 1 Const. (S.C.) 
R., 225; Griffen vs. Griffen,. R. M. Cliarlt., 217; Halley vs. 
Webster, 21 Maine, 462; Goble vs. Grant, 2 Green’s Chancery 
R., 629. 
As a proposition of law, this requires no argument. If the 
proof showed that, for years before the will was made, the 
testator had been utterly insane and incapable of any degree 
of reflection—and that, the next day after it was made, he 
was in the same melancholy condition—yet, if it was satis- 
factorily proved that he enjoyed a lucid interval for a sufficient 
length of time to call to mind the objects of his bounty, to 
remember the property he had to bestow, and to understand 
his own plan of distribution, it would be sufficient. But the 
rule need not be carried so far in this case. The proof shows 
that Mr. Piatt’s ordinary condition was sanity; and the ques- 12 
tion is, whether, from any cause, he was out of his right 
mind when the will was made. The exact concurrence, as 
we have already seen, of all the subscribing witnesses, and of 
all other persons who saw him on that day, that his mind 
was as sound as it ever had been, imposes the burthen upon 
the other party of showing a condition of mind, before and 
after the execution of the will, inconsistent with the idea that 
his mind was sound at that point of time. 
That part of the testimony adverse to the will, which comes 
nearest to this important point of time, is that which begins 
on the 21st of May, two days after the will was executed, 
and comes down to the time of the testator’s death, on the 
28th. Here is an interval of seven days for observation; and 
let us see how many facts and circumstances the adverse wit- 
nesses can recount, within that time, inconsistent with the 
sanity of the testator on the 19th of May, at seven, o’clock in 
the evening, when the will was executed. 
There are four adverse witnesses, who speak as to this 
interval of time: Dunn Piatt, Louise Piatt, Dr. Blaisdell and 
Dr. Murphy. It may be well to examine the testimony of 
each of these witnesses separately, and compare them together, 
to see how far they sustain each other—how far they are sus- 
tained by the testimony of other witnesses—how far their 
testimony in Court is sustained by their own conduct out of 
Court—and whether they acted toward the testator as honest 
people, in tlieir own right minds, act toward a man who, from 
insanity or imbecility, is incapable of transacting business. 
But, first of all, before considering the testimony of these 
four witnesses, or of any others, touching the condition of the 
testator’s mind, or as to the facts on which their opinions are 
founded, we ought to know something of the natural charac- 
teristics of that mind in its normal condition; and if he had, 
naturally, any strongly marked traits of character, we ought 
to know what they are. 
First.—He was very irritable, and easily provoked, to anger; 
and, when angry, could not control his temper. 
Thomas K. Smith says: “ lie was irrascible in temper—a 
“defect which became much aggravated by his physical ail- 
“ments.” And, when he threatened to burn his books, “he 
“was excited and furious in his conversation.” 13 
Dr. Mudd says: “Mr. Piatt’s general conduct toward his 
“family was that of a very kind and indulgent husband and 
“ father; but, being of a very excitable temper, I have known 
“ him occasionally to become very much exasperated at the 
“ young ones for faults, such as running out into the streets, 
“&c., and now and then to punish them quite severely.” 
Mr. Van Matre says: “He was a man usually very polite 
“in his intercourse with men; but I have known him sud- 
denly and unexpectedly to fly into a furious passion, and 
“ seem extremely irritable for a few seconds.” 
Mr. King says: “He was, at times, unmeasured and violent 
“in his temper and feeling:” and other witnesses testify to the 
same effect. 
Second.—He was, when excited, exceedingly rash, and extrav- 
agant in the use of language; often going beyond what he would 
have either thought or said on sober reflection. 
Judge Storer says: “He was impulsive in his feelings, 
“ sometimes exceedingly rash in his expressions, which I al- 
“ways supposed was the result of temporary excitement, 
“ rather than studied or intentional.” 
Mr. Rairden says: “I have heard him say he would obey 
“ the direction of his priest, in any thing they should direct 
“him, even if his own opinion should be against it. This 
“was in a moment of controversy, when he had got a little 
“out of humor, and I did not think he meant what he 
“said.” 
Mr. Parry says: “In his public speeches he was always a 
“little excited, and went ahead of what the resolutions em- 
bodied. He was not considered safe as a public speaker. 
“He was too extreme. This was always the character of the 
“man, while I knew him in politics, about 1833 and 1834.” 
Of the same character is the declaration sworn to by Mr. 
Kessler: “ He became excited, and said that the Protestant ver- 
“sion of the Bible contained forty thousand lies, and that we 
“intend to drive it out of the public schools.” 
Such, too, is the character of several passages in Mr. Cald- 
well’s report of one of his stump speeches on the school 
question. 
Third.—He was very sarcastic and ironical in his modes of 
expression, and was somewhat unsparing in the use of this talent. 14 
Judge Van Ilamm says: “He was, unfortunately for his 
“own comfort and peace, remarkably sarcastic.” 
Louise Piatt says: “Mr. Piatt had great powers of sar- 
“ casm, and was certainly unsparing in the use of them:” and 
other witnesses concur in this view of his character. 
Fourth.—He had extraordinary powers of the will, and was 
ardent and impetuous in the pursuit of whatever he engaged in. 
Judge Parker says: “He was very ardent, and apt to see 
“but one side of a case.” 
Judge Yan Hamm says: “His mind was remarkably ac- 
“tive, and he was very persevering in always endeavoring to 
“carry his point. He never gave up a point till he was com- 
pelled to by being overruled by the Court; and hardly 
“ then.” 
Rev. Edward Purcell says: “His prominent characteristics 
“were, great energy in whatever he undertook—great deter- 
“ mination to carry out what he thought was correct.” 
Mr. Yan Matre says: “I considered him a man of impetu- 
“ous disposition, and a strong will; and not easily turned 
“ aside from his purpose.” 
Mr. Cliidsey says: “He was a man of very great perse- 
verance and activity. If he set himself about accomplish- 
ing an object, he would do it if it killed him:” and this is 
the general tenor of the testimony. To these should be add- 
ed : 
Fifth.—Mr. Piatt was, in the latter part of his life, decidedly 
a religious man, honestly believing the doctrines and approving 
the usages of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he was a 
member. 
These qualities should be known in advance, so that, when 
they are referred to hereafter, they may not be total strang- 
ers to us, nor we to them. 
So that, when we are informed that he was very angry 
with his son for refusing to carry a package, or for causing 
his vote to be challenged at an election, we may remember 
that he was naturally irritable and easily provoked to anger, 
and, when angry, could not govern his temper. 
So that, when we are informed that, in a controversy with 
Mr. Kessler about the use of King James’s Bible in the pub- 
lic schools, “he became excited, and said that it contained 15 
“forty thousand lies,” we may remember that naturally, when 
excited, he was “exceedingly rash” and extravagant in the 
use of language, often going beyond what he would have 
either thought or said on sober reflection. 
So that, when we are informed that he ridiculed his son 
for going to hear swaddlers preach, and snubbed his pretty 
sister-in-law for meddling with his will, we may remember 
that, naturally, he was very sarcastic and ironical in his 
modes of expression, and was somewhat “unsparing in the 
use of this talent.” 
So that, when Dr. Murphy is astonished that he should be 
out on his crutches superintending his buildings, when, in his 
opinion, he ought to have been in his bed, we may remember 
that, naturally, he had extraordinary powers of the will, 
and was ardent and impetuous in the pursuit of whatever 
he engaged in—that, as Mr. Chidsey says, “if he set him- 
“self about accomplishing an object, he would do it if it 
“killed him.” 
So that, when he is condemned as a religious maniac, we 
may remember that he was a religious man, attached to the 
Roman Catholic Church, and inquire whether, in his faith and 
practice, he went beyond the standards of his church, or 
the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. 
With this clue in our hands we may safely tread all the 
windings of the mighty labyrinth in which the ingenuity of 
counsel and the ignorance or willfulness of witnesses have in- 
volved this case, and come again into open day, without con- 
founding eccentricity with insanity or religion with fanat- 
icism. 
Another preliminary remark as to some of the lights by 
which we are to travel. Jacob W. Piatt was not without en- 
emies among his kindred. Mr. Runkle testifies to some ill 
feeling between him and his uncle Abram and the heirs of 
his aunt Haney Dunn. The nature of this feud is explained 
in other parts of the testimony. Abram and the Dunn heirs 
had brought a suit in chancery against Nicholas Longworth 
and Benjamin M. Piatt, as administrators of John H. Piatt, 
and against Jacob W. Piatt as a purchaser at administrator’s 
sale. This suit involved an immense amount of property, 
and a great deal of feeling. This was the case alluded to 16 
by Dr. Harding, in which Dunn Piatt and others urged the 
taking of his brother’s deposition, and by Mr. Johnston, in 
which the testator sent a message to Longworth and his coun- 
sel advising them to take his deposition. The counsel 
thought there was a good defense, and so advised; but the 
good old man, Benjamin M. Piatt, wishing, as he expressed 
it, to die in peace with his brother, and his sister’s children, 
resolved to compromise the case for himself and his sou Ja- 
cob. The terms of this compromise were settled before Ja- 
cob’s death, though not carried out till afterward. Jacob re- 
fused to give any advice as to the compromise, on the ground 
that he had received from his father all he expected; so that 
the compromise, if made, would be at the cost, indirectly, of 
his brothers and sisters, and their heirs, who would be expect- 
ing the residue of his father’s estate. Dunn Piatt opposed 
the compromise to the last, but the father persisted in con- 
summating it, by conveying to his brother Abram and the 
Dunn heirs property in Toledo, worth from $20,000 to 
$30,000. 
Estimating this property at $25,000, it was an indirect tax 
of $5,000 each on the remaining branches of Benjamin M. 
Piatt’s family: on the Runkle family $5,000; on Mrs. Worth- 
ington $5,000; on Mrs. Thomas K. Smith $5,000; on Abram 
S. Piatt $5,000; on Dunn Piatt $5,000. The old man had a 
right to do what he pleased with his own, and exercised this 
right without regard to the future interests of his children. 
In his view, this conveyance was “ a peace offering.” In the 
view of his children, it was “a whole burnt offering”—a sac- 
rifice, at their expense, to purchase peace to Jacob and secur- 
ity to his estate. 
Here originated the idea that Jacob had more than his 
proper share of influence with his father. Here originated 
the idea that the father was in his dotage and unfit to be a 
witness. Here originated a relentless warfare on the estate 
and will of Jacob W. Piatt. Here they gather around Dunn 
Piatt, as their leader, to prove, if it may be done, that a man, 
most remarkable for his common sense, had not mind suffi- 
cient to make a will. Here they stand around the testator, 
like magnifying mirrors, to exaggerate, by reflection, every 
act done and every word said into Brobdignagean proportions, 17 
and to bewilder and confound every body by the boldness of 
their assertions. 
Dunn Piatt was not present when the will was made and 
did not see the testator till he came to bis bouse on Broad- 
way, two days afterward. He says: “At that time be was 
“ totally prostrated, mentally and physically, from the disease of 
“which be died.” This language is not only highly figura- 
tive, but highly extravagant; so much so, as to impair its 
own force and lessen one’s confidence in other parts of his 
testimony. To be prostrated, according to the English stand- 
ards, means to be “laid at length,” “laid flat,” “thrown 
down,” “destroyed.” Surely this was not literally true, eith- 
er of Mr. Piatt’s body or mind; nor was it, as we shall see, 
figuratively true. The witness has not left us to suppose, 
that he meant merely that the testator was weak and sick in 
body and feeble in mind. The prostration of which he 
speaks, was not partial or limited—not that degree of disa- 
blement which one man might notice and which might es- 
cape the observation of another. It was total: “he was total- 
ly prostrated.” This sweeping declaration brings the witness 
directly in conflict with ten other witnesses, whose opportu- 
nity of knowing Mr. Piatt’s condition was equally good and 
who are, in all respects, as worthy of belief as he, and who 
state specific facts inconsistent with the extravagant idea of 
total prostration, mental and physical. 
James McCallion, the carpenter, accompanied Mr. Piatt on 
his way, as far as Lawrenceburg, to select a lot of lumber 
which he purchased at that place. Warren Tate sold him the 
lot of lumber and observed the care and prudence with which 
he bargained for it. Rev. Edward Purcell saw and conversed 
with him at his own house. Dan. Riley saw him at his sta- 
ble, and heard him converse on business. Archbishop Pur- 
cell saw him, at his brother Dunn’s house on Broadway, 
and conversed with him about his will. Judge Tilden saw 
him in a periodical store, and conversed with him about his 
health and other topics. Rev. Charles Driscol saw him at 
Dunn’s, and “ was closeted with him for two hours.” His 
own father accompanied him from Federal Hall to Cincinnati, 
and had a great deal of conversation with him—the father 
endeavoring, without success, to persuade the son to change 18 
liis will, and the son endeavoring, without success, to persuade 
the father to change his religion. Benjamin M. Piatt, jr., ac- 
companied him from Federal Ilall to Cincinnati—went with 
him from place to place in the city, and accompanied him 
home again to Federal Hall. 
If he had been totally prostrated, both mentally and physi- 
cally, some one of these ten witnesses would have discovered 
it. But not one of them discovered anything of the sort— 
all of them thought his mind as clear as it had ever been. In 
addition to their opinions, founded on the facts, we have their 
acts in relation to him, which speak even louder than their 
words. Mr. ‘Tate did not hesitate to deal with him and sell 
him a lot of lumber, for which he bargained sagaciously. His 
father and his mother and Archbishop Purcell endeavored to 
persuade him to make a new and different will from that 
which he had already made—wdrich, as honest people, they 
could not have done, if they had not believed him competent 
to make a will. 
Moreover, when all the testimony of all that he said and 
all that he did, from the time he left Federal Hall till he 
returned thither again, is carefully sifted, it will not be found 
that he did, or attempted to do, one foolish act, or that he 
uttered one foolish word all the while; unless, indeed, they 
were acts of folly to try Dr. Blaisdell’s baths, and take Dr. 
Murphy’s medicines; or, that he uttered words of folly wThen 
he made his last appeal to his father on the subject of reli- 
gion. It will be found that, in the narrative of facts, both 
Dunn Piatt and his wife limit his acts of insanity to this one 
occurrence, which shall be noticed in its place. 
Dunn Piatt, then, is not to be relied on implicitly in his 
sweeping assertion, that the testator at this time was totally 
prostrated, mentally and physically. 
But let us bring on the doctors, and see whether they sus- 
tain this broad assertion of Dunn Piatt. Dr. Blaisdell 
expresses an opinion that his mind wTas not in condition to 
transact important business. But what facts does he state? 
He does not pretend to have seen him do, or attempt to do, 
one foolish act; except, that he thought strange that he 
came to his house, from the depot, in an express wagon 
instead of a coach. It must be admitted that it would have 19 
been more respectful to tbe Doctor, and more creditable to 
his establishment, if he had come in a coach. But when we 
consider Mr. Piatt’s character for frugality and primitive 
simplicity, there is nothing in this act indicating insanity; 
and, if there was, it proves too much; it proves the whole 
bevy of them to have been equally insane—his father, mother, 
cousin Ben and all. The doctor says Mr. Piatt was absent- 
minded and incoherent in conversation; but he can not recol- 
lect a sentence nor a word from which he drew this inference. 
Pie judged mainly by his exceeding-feebleness and helplessness 
of body; and it is well calculated to weaken one’s confidence 
in his conclusions, when it is seen how badly he remembers 
the facts. He says, in speaking of his visits to the baths: 
“The gentleman came to my house with him every time Mr. 
“ Piatt came. He could not come alone. He could not walk 
“ a step alone. * * * I did not consider it safe for him 
“to be about, and should not have been surprised if he had 
“ fallen down dead at any moment.” 
Now we know, from the proof, that, sick and weak as Mr. 
Piatt was at this time, he was able, before he left home, to 
walk about on his crutches and oversee his workmen; and 
we have the statement of John II. Piatt, the principal con- 
testor, in a letter to his sister Belle, that the trip to the 
city improved his condition. We have the proof, that, when 
in the city, he walked with his crutches from his carriage to 
Archbishop Purcell’s house and baok again; that he went 
up stairs to the baths and came down again, from time to 
time, without the aid of any one; that he was seen, going on 
his crutches, by Judge Tilden and Dan. Riley; that, when he 
landed at his farm, on his return home, he walked up the 
steep river bank without aid—and so on: so that the Doctor’s 
memory fails him, when he says u he could not walk a step 
“alone.” And when the memory is so treacherous in some 
things, it may play the traitor in others also. 
The Doctor’s diagnosis of Mr. Piatt’s mind proves his judg- 
ment to be no better than his memory. He says: “ His mind 
“was in the condition to be influenced by any of his friends. 
“I mean to say, a friend might persuade him to do a thing at 
“one time, and another friend might persuade him to change 
“his mind a short time after. Persons suffering with that 20 
“ disease, when it lias become far advanced and the system 
“much reduced, have no resolution of character, but are 
“ entirely at the mercy of those who have influence over 
“them.” This proves how little reliance can be placed in the 
mere opinions of learned men; and how wise the rule of law 
is which requires even a doctor to state the facts. Let us see 
if the facts which others state will sustain the Doctor’s opin- 
ion in this particular case. Mr. Piatt had made a will, a few 
days before, at his own house in Kentucky. From thence he 
came to his brother’s house in Cincinnati, leaving his wife 
and all her kindred and friends behind him. Here he was 
surrounded by his cunning little sister Louise, and all his 
other friends who had foreordained that the will should not 
stand, with Archbishop Purcell as their ally. His mother, 
his father, his bishop, all assail this man, whom the doctor 
supposes to be “at the mercy of his friends,” and all of them 
are unable to move him. “That which is written, is written,” 
said the Stoics, and so said the testator. lie had within him 
the same unconquerable will which had been his law through 
life, and which, like an old Damascus blade in a ragged scab- 
hard, though covered with the dents of a hundred battles, 
still refused to yield. What Mr. Piatt did, and what he 
refused to do, in the last stages of cancer of the intestines, dis- 
sipates the theory of both Dr. Blaisdell and Dr. Murphy, that 
this disease produces weakness, irresolution or vacillation of 
the will. And when this case is added to that of Kapoleon 
the First, who died from cancer of the stomach, and that of 
Col. Benton, who died from cancer in the bowels, it ought to 
make the doctors reflect, unless, like the immortal Sangrado, 
they have already “written a book.” 
This leads to some remarks on the testimony of Dr. Murphy, 
touching the same interval of time. Dr. Murphy, like Dr. 
Blaisdell, was not acquainted, by experience, with Mr. Piatt’s 
constitution and general health. He had never been his 
family physician, or prescribed for him before. He was 
not now called in at his request, at the request of Mrs 
Piatt, or of any member of the family. lie was not called 
to consult with Dr. Wood, Dr. Harding, Dr. Mudd, nor any 
one of those on whom Mr. Piatt had formerly relied, or who 
had formerly prescribed for him. He was called in by Mrs. 21 
Dunn Piatt, not for the purpose of curing Mr. Piatt—for he 
tells us that neither he nor she had any expectation that he 
would recover. He was called in by the junto on Broadway, 
who, having failed in an attempt to make the will, next at- 
tempted to change it, and, having failed in that, last of all, 
are now attempting to break it. His business was to see what 
might be seen and tell what might be told. Be this as it may, 
he is an unfortunate witness. He deals too much in opinions 
and too little in facts, to come up to the standard of the law, 
which requires that even a doctor must state the facts on 
which he forms his opinion. Seeming to regard it as his busi- 
ness to settle the main question, he states the following con- 
clusions of his mind: “ Did n’t consider him, while I was with 
“him, capable of making a rational disposition of his proper- 
“ ty, nor taking a survey of his estate. Do n’t think much 
“change could have taken place in two or three days before 
“from the nature of the disease, unless from some circum- 
stance which did not exist in his case, so far as I know.” 
Again: “I believe, if appealed to by religious persons, he 
“would have been liable to be influenced so by religious con- 
versation, that is, by a Catholic. The first thing with him 
“ was a man’s religion. At the time of his sickness, I think, 
“he could be easily influenced by one of his faith in whom 
“he had confidence.” Again: “Do n’t think, when I was in 
“attendance, he was capable of taking a rational survey of 
“his estate and making a disposition of it.” Again : “ I do n’t 
“think he would have been capable of settling any business 
“ which did n’t agree with his religious idea of what was 
“ right.” 
These are the Doctor’s conclusions; but, before he can ask 
other people to adopt them, the law requires him to state the 
facts from which they are drawn. Amongst other things, he 
alleges that Mr. Piatt had not common sense; and this is so 
favorite an idea, that he repeats it several times: and he 
speaks of this as of a defect natural to him, which allied it- 
self with other causes to render him incapable of disposing 
of his own property. Thus, he says: “Mr. Piatt was only 
“lacking in common sense, not deranged.” And, again: 
“Mr. Piatt’s intellect was weakened, besides his lack of com- 
“mon sense.” This is a dangerous point for the Doctor to 22 
assail. He does not carry guns enough for such an assault. 
The proof is too full and clear to be got rid of, that, in all 
the operations of life, he was a man remarkable for common 
sense—so much so, that the witness who ventures such an as- 
sertion has no claim to respect for his opinions. 
Another strong ground of the Doctor’s—one which he re- 
fers to as an evidence of a lack of common sense—is, that 
“ Piatt had no faith in medicine or doctors, but took medicine 
“ from religious duty,” which the Doctor construes to mean, 
“duty to the Church.” lie says: “I prescribed for him, as 
“for one who had no confidence in me, or in medicine, or 
“ doctors, and he seemed to attach no importance to my pre- 
scribing for him—not to think that I was any more than 
“any body else.” Ho doubt, this was hard to bear with. 
Hut what was remarkable in the case was, that the Doctor 
had no confidence himself. There was a perfect sameness be- 
tween the Doctor and the patient in this respect. The Doc- 
tor had no expectation that Mr. Piatt wmuld recover—Mr. 
Piatt had no expectation himself that he would recover. 
The-Doctor knew perfectly well that medicine could do him 
no good—Mr. Piatt knew perfectly well the same thing. He 
prescribed, then, merely as a sham, to soothe the feelings of 
a dying man—and the patient lacks common sense because 
he has no confidence in the Doctor’s shams. Mr. Piatt had 
that within which “feelingly persuaded him” his race was 
run. He had tried the skill of doctors, and the powers 
of medicine, long enough to know they could be of no avail; 
and continued to try them from a sense of duty to his friends 
and family: not to his Church, as the Doctor supposes—for 
he submitted to Blaisdell’s baths to gratify his mother, and to 
Murphy’s prescriptions to gratify his sister. The Church 
recommended neither the one nor the other. As for himself, 
his only hope was in the Physician of souls. His prospects 
in this life were all dashed. His sky was enveloped with 
clouds on every side. One only Star shone out before him, 
growing broader and brighter as every other light faded 
away. Religion with him was all; and he only lingered here 
that he might not only do, but suffer, the will of God. And 
this is what his infidel friends deemed madness—“ monoma- 
nia,” “ religious monomania.” 23 
This suggests another of the reasons the Doctor states for 
his conclusions. He says: “His prominent idea was a relig- 
ious one. He was entirely occupied with it. When he had 
“ his first paroxysm, he had his formula, and, like other relig- 
“ ious people, was repeating various forms of prayer, using the 
“rosary and crying out for relief.” “He was a monomaniac 
“ about religionand so on. 
This idea of religious monomania was a sort of endemic 
disease in the atmosphere of Dunn Piatt’s house, on Broadway, 
and there the Doctor caught it. He relates two conversations 
he had with Mr. Piatt about religion. In one of these, Mr. 
Piatt declared that he had not much confidence in any man 
who was not a member of the Church. In the other, he de- 
fended Louis Napoleon—said he was the right man for the 
French—denounced the French as a nation of infidels, who 
needed a religious ruler: and so on. These two conversa- 
tions on religion were long before Mr. Piatt’s illness; when, 
as far as we know, he was in as good health, both of body 
and mind, as he had ever enjoyed. They were occasions on 
wrhich the Doctor was paying polite attentions to Mr. Piatt’s 
daughter Carrie, and of course some time before her mar- 
riage. These two were the only occasions on which the Doc- 
tor ever heard him converse on religion. This is manifest 
from what he said in a deposition taken shortly after the 
death of Mr. Piatt, when every thing was much fresher in 
his mind than when he testified last in the case. The pas- 
sage in that deposition which, by cross-examination, was trans- 
ferred to the record, is this: “My conversations with him on 
“religious matters were accidental, coming up in a general 
“ conversation. I never heard him express himself on relig- 
ious matters in conversation with me but twice, although I 
“ have heard him during his illness express his faith to those 
“ around him in the Catholic Church.” If an expression of 
his faith in the Catholic Church is a sufficient predicate for 
the opinion of a learned man that he was a monomaniac, then 
we understand him. If it is not, what else is there? He 
heard him praying on two occasions. When he had a par- 
oxysm at Dunn Piatt’s house in Cincinnati, “ like other relig- 
ious people, he prayed for relief:” and when he died in a 
terrible paroxysm, in his own house, he expired with the 24 
language of prayer on his lips. What “formula5"' he used we 
are not informed—probably the formula of St. Stephen: “ Lord 
“Jesus, receive my spirit.” 
“Here endeth” the evidence of religious monomania, as far 
as it fell under the Doctor’s own observation. He must have 
formed his opinion from statements made to him by others; 
or, he must have adopted the opinions of others ready form- 
ed: or, his own opinion has no rational foundation. 
What other evidence does the Doctor give us of the testa- 
tor’s incapacity to dispose of his estate? He has told us that 
“Mr. Piatt was only lacking in common sense—not deranged.” 
What did he hear him say? what did*he see him do,evincing 
incapacity? He never conversed with him about business 
but once, and he gives us that conversation thus: “I had 
“heard that he was going to make a will from rumor. First 
“learned that he had made a will from himself. I asked if 
“ he had freed his mind from business and settled your af- 
“fairs? He said: ‘I have made my will, Doctor.’ Never had 
“any other conversation about business.” What did he do? 
He superintended the foundation of an addition to his house, 
when the Doctor thought he was too sick to attend to it. 
There was not, in all the Doctor heard or saw during Mr. 
Piatt’s last illness, one foolish word or one foolish act, nor an 
instance of undue influence exercised, or attempted to be ex- 
ercised; and, on cross examination, he makes this acknowl- 
edgment : “ My opinions, as to his impressibility and the char- 
“ acter of the persons who could impress, is formed from his 
“general constitution and expression, rather than from any 
“facts, and from the fond influence and intensity of his%re- 
“ ligious feelings.” 
Dr. Murphy, doubtless, examined closely for the mental 
manifestations of Mr. Piatt, and labored hard for a rational 
foundation for his belief. Dr. Blaisdell was equally diligent 
in his discoveries and equally anxious to sustain his opinions: 
but Dr. Murphy did not discover that which was most prom- 
inent in the mind of Dr. Blaisdell—that Mr. Piatt was absent 
minded and incoherent in his conversations. Nor did Dr. 
Blaisdell discover that which filled the chief place in the 
mind of Dr. Murphy—that he was a monomaniac on the sub- 
ject of religion. 25 
This suggests one observation in advance of its proper 
place: If the testator was a monomaniac—the victim of one 
absorbing idea—it is rather remarkable that these two doc- 
tors, and two others called on the same side, should each 
have his own distinct theory of his mental disorder. Dr. 
Murphy alone, who breathed the atmosphere of Dunn Piatt’s 
house on Broadway, took the theory of religious monomania. 
Sanity is the natural condition of the human mind, and 
the law presumes the testator to have been of sound mind till 
the contrary is proved: and unless the facts and circum- 
stances given in evidence on the trial show that, at the time 
he made the will, he was of unsound mind, a Jury has no 
right to set it aside: 
Stevens vs. Vancleve, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 262; Sloan vs. Max- 
well, 2 Green’s Ch’y R., 580; Jackson vs. King, 4 Cowan, 207; 
Daffidd vs. Robeson, 2 Harrington, 375; Hoge vs. Fisher, 1 
Peters, 163; Singleton’'s Will, 8 Dana, 317; Shelford on Lunacy, 
274; Swinburn, 77, 78; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, 42; 2 Green- 
leaf on Evidence, 689; Evans xs. Knight, 1 Adams, 95, 122, 
598; Jackson vs. Vandeusen, 5 Johnson, 144; Peters vs. Bing- 
ham, 10 Yew? Hampshire, 514; Chandler vs. Ferris, 1 Harring- 
ton, 454; Brown vs. Milleston, 3 Wharton, 137; Hix vs. Whit- 
temore, 4 Metcalf, 546; Groom vs. Thomas, 2 Haggard, 434; 
Brooks vs. Barrett, 7 Pickering, 98. 
This, as a rule of law, requires no argument—hut it sug- 
gests a more extended inquiry: how far the contesting parties 
have progressed in establishing, by proof, the allegation of 
unsoundness of mind. In addition to Drs. Blaisdell and 
Murphy, whose testimony has been already noticed, two 
other gentlemen, professing the healing art, are called, both 
of whom express an opinion that, several months before the 
testator’s injury or last illness, his mind was unsound. 
Dr. Ehrmann, a Homeopathist, says a great deal, but proves 
only this: that Mr. Piatt was weak and sick, and had lost 
confidence in physicians. But he does not recollect any 
thing that he said, or any thing that he did, evincing the 
want of proper understanding. 
Dr. Doherty brings himself fairly within the rule of law; 
IV. 26 
he states two reasons for his opinion, and confesses that he 
knows of no other. 1st, Mr. Piatt, being his landlord, 
demanded, peremptorily, that he should keep a narrow side 
entrance, between him and his next neighbor, clean, when 
the doctor thought the tenant on the other side ought to help 
clean it. 2d, From an argument he had with Mr. Piatt 
about spiritualism, he thought Mr. Piatt believed in it, and 
this satisfied the Doctor that he wras out of his right mind. 
This last ground is removed by the proof that Mr. Piatt had 
no serious belief in the matter. 
We must, then, look a little further into the evidence. 
First, let us take up the testimony of Thomas Iv. Smith— 
one of the numerous kinsfolk of Mr. Piatt to whom he stood 
in the relation of a father and friend, and whose property 
and interests he took care of when they seemed unable to 
take care of them for themselves. This testimony is so 
highly ornate and poetical, so bedecked with the flounces and 
furbelows of classic and mythological lore, that it irks one's 
conscience to mar the beauty of a thing “ so fair and so frail.” 
But duty requires it to be examined, not so much for the 
opinions it expresses as for the facts which it discloses, and 
to see how well they hold together. In one clause, speak- 
ing of Mr. Piatt, he says: “He was always an invalid while 
“I knew him; a victim, I believe, of chronic dyspepsia.’’ 
In another,he says: “He had a strong frame and an indomi- 
table will, and possessed a remarkable industry, always 
“ averse to yielding to sickness.” So, too, as to the time and 
occasion when he discovered that Mr. Piatt’s mind was fail- 
ing, in one clause he says: “I found Mr. Piatt, on my return 
“from Washington, in 1856, a mere, wreck of his former self, 
“both in body and mind.” In another clause, speaking of 
the visit he paid at Federal Hall, during Mr. Piatt’s last 
illness, in 1857, he says: “During that visit, I formed the 
“opinion that his mental energies were shattered.” So, too, 
as to the main question involved in the controversy, whether 
Mr. Piatt was sane or insane, he seems to waver; for, having 
informed us that, in 1856, his mind was a mere wreck—that, 
after his injury, his mental energies were shattered—that he is 
quite confident “that, for three months preceding his death, 
“he was a monomaniac on the subject of religion”—he comes 27 
down and says: “There were times, certainly, when his mind 
“was sufficiently clear for the transaction of ordinary busi- 
“ ness—the small details of every-day life,” &c.; and, “I do 
“not wish to be understood as expressing the opinion (and I 
“take my deposition, after all, a mere opinion) that J. W. 
“ Piatt was insane or imbecile; but that he was so tortured 
“with physical agony, the few weeks before his death, as to 
“be incapacitated for a continuous train of thought upon any 
“one subject.” Neither do Mr. Smith’s actions and words 
agree as to the capacity of Mr. Piatt for business. After 
1856, when he professes to have found him “a mere wreck- 
“both in bod}’ and mind,” he and his wife intrust him with 
difficult and important business, affecting the rights of Mrs. 
Smith—and this “wreck” takes upon himself, as attorney and 
next friend, this business, and accomplishes it with success. 
And when, in addition to former infirmities, he is suffering 
the hell of Prometheus, and Mr. Smith is threatened with 
the opposition of one of the most formidable politicians in 
the country, and in danger of losing his office and his all, he 
flies to this “ mere wreck ” for advice and comfort. 
Mr. Smith do n’t know what he is talking about. All, or 
nearly all, that he relates about the sufferings of Mr. Piatt 
and the condition of his mind for the last three months before 
his death, must be mere guess-work. He was not on the spot 
to witness either. Mr. Piatt was wounded on the 14th of 
February, made his will on the 19th of May, and visited Cin- 
cinnati on the 21st. During these three months and seven 
days, Mr. Smith saw him but once, and then did not watch 
with him, so as to witness his nightly paroxysms. He did 
not go there to watch with him nor to sympathize with him or 
his family. He had a grist of his own to grind, and that was 
his business. But he shall tell this part of the story him- 
self: 
“I think I visited him in Kentucky but once after the in- 
“jury to his knee and before he came to Cincinnati the last 
“time. * * Upon that visit, I sat with him in the evening 
“of my arrival till, perhaps, nine or ten o’clock, and then re- 
tired, sleeping in the adjoining room. I spent the greater 
“ part of the next day at his bed-side.” 
What were the visions of Mr. Smith’s head during this 
© 28 
night’s sleep, will appear as lie progresses in reply to a re- 
quest to he specific in his statements: 
“In answer to this question I must explain, that Mr. Ifi- 
“att had been, for many years, a prominent politician—an iu- 
and leading member of the Democratic party. I 
“had been appointed by President Pierce, during the recess 
“of the 34th Congress, United States Marshal for the South- 
ern District of Ohio, in opposition to candidates supported 
“by Senator George E. Pugh; who, upon that ground, had 
“declared his intention of frustrating the confirmation of my 
“appointment by the Senate. With a view to taking counsel 
“ with Mr. Piatt in that behalf, I visited him, and during that 
“visit I formed the opinion that his mental energies were shat- 
“ tered.” 
We now learn the topic (not the conversation, because Mr. 
Smith is careful not to give us one word of it)—the subject 
matter which occupied his time the next day at the sick 
man’s bed-side, and from which he “formed the opinion that 
“ his mental energies were shattered.” 
“I knew that he took a kindly interest in me and in my 
“affairs—that he regarded the subject matter I laid before 
“him as one of the greatest importance to me, the place I de- 
“ sired to retain being one of honor and large pecuniary 
“emolument; aside from which, there were questions mooted 
“calculated to rouse him by arraying before him men and 
“measures that would excite his antipathies and partialities. 
“Yet I found it difficult for him to fix his mind even for a 
“few moments. He continually wandered off, reverting to 
“the subject of religion, always his first and last thought. 
“Sectarianism and doctrinal works, the reading of which he 
“pressed upon me at that time, mal appropos as it was. I left 
“him, fully convinced that it was useless to attempt conver- 
sation with him on any matter of business—that all he had 
“left of intellect was concentrated upon Catholicism and his 
“desire to proselyte to that faith.” 
Allowing that Mr. Smith believes himself, when he says 
“he found Mr. Piatt, on his return from Washington, in 
“1856, a mere wreck of his former self, both in body and 
“mind;” allowing the wound in his knee to have been as 
ghastly and dangerous as it really was; and, allowing his suf- 29 
ferings to have been as terrible and unremitting as Mr. Smith 
represents them to have been: it would be entirely safe to 
submit the question, which was the greater madman, Mr. 
Smith for vexing the mind of such a sufferer with such ques- 
tions, or Mr. Piatt for refusing to be vexed with them. 
Doubtless these men mutually distrusted each other’s sanity; 
but, before we condemn either, let us look for a moment at 
the peculiar relations of each. Mr. Smith was a living poli- 
tician, Mr. Piatt was a dying Christian; Mr. Smith was a 
candidate for Marshal of the Southern District of Ohio, Mr. 
Piatt was a candidate for Heaven only. In Mr. Smith’s esti- 
mation, the honors and emoluments of high constable of the 
United States were worthy the ambition of Csesar; in Mr. 
Piatt’s estimation, all the titles and honors and emoluments 
of this world were nothing, compared with the unfading hon- 
ors and the “unsearchable riches” of the world to come. 
Mr. Smith was shipped in a new and untried vessel, badly 
ballasted, with all sail crowded, ready to tempt the dangers 
of an unknown sea in search of baubles; Mr. Piatt had 
weathered out the storms of life, smelt the land breezes and 
saw the head-lands of immortality before him. Mr. Smith 
was struggling for a “slippery tenure”—a tenure at will in 
an earthly office; Mr. Piatt sought to secure an inheritance 
in fee simple in the land of eternal rest. If Mr. Smith had 
been willing to journey in the same road, and seek the same 
object, feeble as he was, Mr. Piatt would have taken him by 
the hand and helped him along. But Mr. Smith was intent 
on the flesh pots of Egypt. 
Mr. Smith has not favored us with one sentence, or one 
word, which Mr. Piatt uttered during this conversation. We 
must take it for granted that they were foolish words on his cer- 
tificate. Hor has he given us the title of one book which he 
advised him to read, so that we might judge whether they 
were good books or bad books, sectarian or unsectarian. But, 
knowing the object for which Mr. Smith visited the sick 
man—knowing that he attempted to rouse him by appeals to 
old antipathies—and, knowing the result of the conference, 
we have a right to conjecture that it ran thus: “My very 
dear uncle, you must rouse from this lethargy, fling away 
your crutches, your beads and your prayer-books, and give 30 
your religious contemplations to the winds. I am in danger, 
sir, of losing my office; and, if I lose my office, I am undone 
forever. It is an office of high honor and large emoluments; 
and, if I am permitted to hold on to it, I will add a new lus- 
ter to the name of your family. Besides, they are your old 
enemies and the enemies of your family who are opposed to 
me. If they triumph over me, it will be a triumph over the 
whole family. You owe these men a grudge, and now is your 
time to pay them. Your biting sarcasm, your withering in- 
vective, will drive them to their holes like mice. Senator 
Pugh is bold, wily and resolute, in the face of ordinary op- 
position ; but he will not venture to grapple with you—he 
knows you too well.” To all this we may suppose the sick 
man briefly replied: “My son, ‘seek first the kingdom of 
God and his righteousness.’ ” 
The young man goes away sorrowful and very heavy—con- 
cludes that his uncle is insane—and now remembers, what it 
would seem he had forgotten, that, when he returned from 
Washington, in 1856, he found him a mere wreck in body 
and mind. 
Still, Mr. Smith leaves a very broad margin for other wit- 
nesses to stand upon. He saw Mr. Piatt but once from the 
time he received his injury to the time he visited Cincinnati 
after the will was made. Of course, except what he saw him 
suffer on that one occasion, he knows nothing about his suffer- 
ings. All his statements outside of this one day are the mere 
repetitions of what others had told him, or mere conjecture; 
and all opinions predicated on such statements are worthless. 
Let us quote him again: “I do not wish to be understood as 
“ expressing the opinion, that J. W. Piatt was insane or imbe- 
licile; but that he was so tortured with physical agony, the 
“few weeks before his death, as to be incapacitated for a con- 
tinuous train of thought upon any one subject.” 
How, if it should appear from the testimony of others, who 
watched with him and waited on him by day and by night— 
day after day and week after week—that, for the “ few weeks 
before his death,” his sufferings were limited to a few hours, 
or a few minutes in the night season, when he was visited 
with paroxysms of pain; and that, during the whole of al- 
most every day, and part of every night, he enjoyed freedom 31 
from pain—walked about on his crutches attending to busi- 
ness—was cheerful and elastic in his spirits—conversed freely 
on every topic—exercised as sound a judgment as he had 
ever exercised; and was treated and dealt with by all his 
neighbors and friends as a valid business man: what becomes 
of Mr. Smith’s idea that he was “incapacitated for a contin- 
uous train of thought upon any one subject”? His theory 
perishes like the goodly gourd that covered the prophet of Nin- 
eveh, which “came up in a night and perished in a night.” 
The root being smitten, the rank luxuriant growth withers 
away. 
But if his theory was true, what of it? The law does not 
require capacity “for a continuous train of thought upon any 
“one subject.” The law does not require that vigor of mind 
which enables a lawyer to write elaborate arguments, investi- 
gate knotty questions and exhaust whole libraries of authori- 
ties; or which enables a divine to write and preach long ser- 
mons. If the testator has memory enough to remember what 
property he has to dispose of and who are to be the objects 
of his bounty, and understanding enough to know the imme- 
diate consequences of what he is doing, it is all the law re- 
quires to enable him to make a valid will. 
But the present case does not require the rule to be stretch- 
ed so far. It is abundantly proved that, though the testator 
was weak and emaciated in body and incapable of perform- 
ing labor which required much physical strength, or such 
continuous mental labor as exhausts the body of a healthy 
man, his mind, except in his paroxysms of pain, was.as clear 
as it had ever been in his life. 
Some reliance seems to be placed in the fact that the testa- 
tor, from early youth—perhaps seventeen years of age—had 
slight fits of epilepsy, which, as the proof shows, became less 
frequent and less severe as he grew older. Experts have not 
been examined as to the effects of this disease on the mind— 
but every one is sufficiently familiar with the subject. That 
frequent and severe fits of epilepsy, as a rule, destroy the 
mind, may be conceded: but the effects in such cases are pe- 
culiar, and are as well known to the world at large as to the 
medical profession. They first produce dullness, then stupid- 
ity, then idiocy, then total obliviousness of mind. But neith- 32 
er mania nor monomania is an effect of epilepsy. That slight 
and unfrequent fits affect the general understanding, is abun- 
dantly disproved by hundreds of instances. Julius Caesar, 
the finest mind Rome ever produced, was always afflicted 
with epilepsy, and had a fit the day before his death. Dr. 
Mudd, who knew the testator’s constitution well, and by 
whose medical aid both the number and severity of his fits 
were mitigated, as also his father, B. M. Piatt, and others, 
testify that they did not affect his mind at all, except for a 
short time while they were coming on and going off, and 
rarely ever interfered with the regular transaction of his bu- 
siness. 
There were times, unquestionably, when Mr. Piatt was in- 
capable of making a rational will. There is not one man in 
a thousand, who, from youth to old age, enjoys such an un- 
interrupted flow of health—or, in sickness, such uninterrupt- 
ed clearness of mind—as to be always in condition to make a 
will. After Mr. Piatt received the wound in his knee, he suf- 
fered such intense pain from his wound—was so much of his 
time benumbed with opiates and so often delirious with fever— 
that a will made at such times ought not to stand. But was 
this state of things continuous? The proof is all the other 
way. After his wound healed, he was in condition to walk 
about and attend to such affairs as did not require physical 
strength or endurance, and enjoyed comparative freedom from 
pain and clearness of mind, except, ordinarily, once every 
night, a severe paroxysm. 
But the eye and ear witnesses shall tell the story. Dr. 
Harding first dressed the wound and attended on the patient 
for eight weeks, when, on the 19tli of April, one month be- 
fore the will was made, he went to the West; and, we believe, 
saw the testator no more alive. He says: “ the progress and 
“ cure of the injury of the knee joint was as rapid and favor- 
able as could have been expected under the circumstances; 
“ the wound having healed up within the succeeding eight 
“weeks from the receipt of the injury. After the expiration 
“ of eight weeks, he was able to move about the room on 
“ crutches.” And, speaking of his mind, the Doctor says: 
“ I think that his mind and memory, both before and after 
“the receipt of the injury, so far as he was under my obser- 33 
“ vation, was quite as discriminating and retentive as that of 
“most men.” But how far did Mr. Piatt fall under Dr. 
Harding’s observation? He visited him, regularly, once every 
second day (and, frequently, every day), for eight weeks in suc- 
cession, and conversed with him, not only on the objects of 
his visits, but on various topics, including that on which he is 
alleged to have been insane. It is quite safe to say, that Dr. 
Ha rd i ng saw him ten times as often and conversed with him 
ten times as much as his brother Dunn, his sister Louise and 
his kinsman Smith, all put together; and that he was quite 
as good a judge of his capacity as either of them. Moreover, 
he had the opportunity of hearing him converse with others 
about business, and of knowing whether they, especially his 
brother Dunn, his son John H. and his father Benjamin 
M. Piatt, considered him capable of business. He sa}Ts: 
“ I was also present at another time, when his father and 
“Dunn Piatt, his brother, and, I think,his son John II. Piatt, 
“ were present; and they were urging upon him, especially Dunn 
“ Piatt, the propriety of having his deposition taken in a 
“business matter, the exact character and details of which I 
“ did not very fully comprehend. My recollection is, that 
“Dunn Piatt urged the propriety of having an attorney, I 
“think Mr. Johnston of Cincinnati, down, to take his depo- 
“ sition in the case or business matter referred to. I think it 
“was in reference to some property in Toledo or Cincinnati, 
“ or, perhaps, both. This was some six or eight weeks pre- 
“ vious to Mr. Piatt’s decease, and the propriety of taking this 
“ deposition was referred to me as his physician, as well as to 
“Mr. Jacob W. Piatt. It was advised that it should he de- 
“ ferred to another time, as he would be likely to be in a state 
“ of health better adapted to the fatigue and exercise of mind 
“incident to this proposition. In reference to this business 
“ matter, discussed between the parties above named, Mr. Ja- 
“ cob W. Piatt seemed to comprehend and understand the 
“subject under discussion. Mr. Jacob W. Piatt took part in 
“the discussion and seemed to understand it as fully as the 
“ others.” This was the old chancery case of Piatt and Dunn’s 
heirs vs. Longwortli and B. M. Piatt and J. W. Piatt, after- 
ward compromised somewhat to the advantage of the estate of J. W. Piatt, and somewhat to the detriment of the other 
children of B. M. Piatt. 
Let us pause for a moment to inquire whether it was possi- 
ble that the father, the brother and the son, of this sick man, 
would have thus urged the taking of this deposition, if they 
had not considered him capable of understanding and trans- 
acting business; and to inquire whether Dunn Piatt does not 
“strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” when he travels 
round so far to explain away the affidavit of the 18th of May 
and leaves his conduct on this occasion without explanation. 
Besides Dr. Harding, there are three other historians of this 
period, whose opportunities of knowing the truth, and whose 
ability to judge of it, were remarkably great. 
Dr. Mudd—a gentleman of liberal education and medical 
science, who, from his long acquaintance with the testator and 
having been so many years his physician, knew all his pecu- 
liarities of body and mind better than any other man—had 
been with him constantly, day and night, for the first five 
weeks after he received the wound, and visited him occasion- 
ally through the remaining eight weeks which lie survived— 
in speaking of the condition of Mr. Piatt’s mind, as to per- 
ception, memory and judgment, between his paroxysms of 
pain, says: “It was as good as usual, when in usual health, 
“except that I thought he did not arrive at his conclusions as 
“rapidly as when in his usual health. I thought his judg- 
“ment sound, his memory tolerably good and his reasoning 
“ correct. I came to this conclusion upon noticing his instruc- 
“ tions to his foreman, on the farm, and his directions to the 
“ workmen who were about erecting an addition to his resi- 
dence: also, from remarking the manner in which he trans- 
acted business with his father, his brothers and others who 
“had business with him. I also formed my opinion from my 
“ own conversation with Mr. on religious, literary and 
“ other matters.” 
Benjamin M. Piatt, the testator’s father, a man of great 
good sense and sober reflection, had spent a great deal of his 
time with his son during his last illness, and conversed with 
him on business and transacted business with him. Benja- 
min M. Piatt, jr., a man of six-and-twenty, the near neigh- 
bor and near kinsman, the intimate friend and the student of 
34 35 
the testator, had been with him much of his time by day, 
and watched with him by night, from one to three nights in 
the week, for three months of his illness—and had been with 
him all the time from the making of his will to the day of 
his death, conversing with him, as we have seen, on every 
topic which might try the powers of his mind: the testimony 
of these three witnesses, together with that of Dr. Harding, 
make out, beyond controversy, the following— 
1st. When the testator was free from paroxysms of pain, 
his mind was as clear and discriminating as it had ordinarily 
been in health. 
2d. On an average, his paroxysms did not occupy one hour 
out of the twenty-four. 
3d. He rarely ever had a paroxysm in the day-time, and 
sometimes had none at night. 
4th. His freedom from pain and fitness for business occurred 
in the day-time; his pain and unfitness for business in the 
night. 
5tli. His paroxysms were not always attended with mental 
aberrations; and, when they were so attended, his aberrations 
were of shorter duration than his sufferings. 
6th. His aberrations did not come on till his paroxysms 
had made some progress, and he usually fell asleep when both 
subsided. 
7tli. He never attempted to transact any business when his 
mental aberrations were on; and, if he had, his sufferings 
were too intense to admit of it. 
Where a man is ordinarily fit for business, and occasionally 
unfit, it is worse than folly to call one set of witnesses to 
prove his fitness and another set to prove his unfitness. The 
whole truth should be known. 
Besides these four witnesses, there are numerous others 
who occasionally saw and conversed with the testator in his 
last illness—amongst others, the Rev. Robert Kirtly, of the 
Baptist Church, who had been successively acquainted with 
the testator’s grandfather, his father and himself. This ven- 
erable man called on purpose to see him, found his intellect 
bright and his spirits cheerful, and conversed with him on 
various topics interesting to them both. After remaining in 
conversation two, or two and a half, hours, from all he saw 36 
and all he heard, he makes this statement: “At that time I did 
“not discover any thing indicating any thing other than a 
“sane mind. His conversation and all was of a rational 
“character; so far as conversation and common matters were 
“ concerned, his memory seemed good. I did not attempt to 
“test his memory particularly.” 
Reese II. Parry (a kinsman or connection of Mr. Piatt, 
who had many years’ acquaintance with him, and who, in his 
day, had a good many bickerings with him about Know- 
nothingism—visited him, “at his home in Boone County,” 
three or four days before his death, and had a good deal of 
conversation with him, and, believing he might recover, 
advised him to travel for his health), bears this testimony as 
to the condition of his mind at that time: “He seemed to be 
“the same he always had been as to sanity. For a man in 
“his condition, I regarded him as lively and sprightly, and 
“lie seemed in a fair way for getting well.” This was after 
he himself, with a better knowledge of his physical condition, 
had made up his mind to die. 
To the same effect is the testimony of all the witnesses 
employed on the farm, who received their orders directly, or 
indirectly, from him from day to day. 
The period now under consideration includes the last jour- 
ney to Cincinnati, what happened there, and what occurred 
after he returned home. And, as before observed, during this 
time he fell under the particular notice of ten intelligent wit- 
nesses, including the two Benjamin M. Piatts, some of whom 
had business transactions and conversations with him, requir- 
ing the exercise of right reason, and all of whom testify to the 
entire clearness of his mind. It is not proposed to repeat, 
in this place, what these witnesses say, except a single quota- 
tion from the deposition of Benjamin M. Piatt, jr., giving 
an account of the testator’s arrival at home, as illustrative of 
what he was when free from his paroxysms of pain. “ On 
“ each night that he stayed in Cincinnati he experienced con- 
siderable pain and suffering; more on Friday night than on 
“the night previous. He resolved, on that night, that he 
“ would go home the next day—said that he had no hope of 
“recovering. On Saturday morning ho still so expressed him- 
“self and requested me, as usual, to go with him to the bath 37 
“and to take him home that day on a boat, which I did.” 
Again: “We went down on the packet (I think it was the 
“Lady Pike, to the best of my recollection). We got off just 
“below his house. We waited at the river until his man could 
“ drive down with the Jersey wagon. We then got in and 
“rode up to the house; two or three of the children came 
“down to meet us, and rode up with us. He walked up the 
“hank from the water’s edge, when we got off the boat; part 
“ of the bank was very steep. I walked behind him, and, 
“when we got to the top of the bank, we sat down together 
“ under a large tree to rest and wait until his man could ar- 
“rive. We talked together as usual, while sitting there, and 
“among other things, he told me that he was glad to get back. 
“When we drove up to the house we met Mrs. Piatt and Mrs. 
“Mudd at the yard gate; they all met very affectionately, and 
“he told them he had come to die in peace, that he had tried 
“everything, and he thought there was no hope of his recov- 
“ ery: that he wanted everything made as pleasant as possible, 
“for that was all that could be done. We all went into the 
“library together; he sat on the large chair that he had used 
“ after be commenced sitting up, conversing pleasantly with 
“ us all, seeming perfectly resigned and willing to die. He 
“seemed perfectly sane on that occasion; knew every person 
“ about him as well as he ever did in his life. I went into the 
“house soon after, and left him in conversation with Mrs. 
“Mudd and Mrs. Piatt.” Which does this most resemble, 
the “ravings” of a maniac or the triumphs of a Christian 
philosopher? 
Let us now revert to the interval of time which elapsed 
from the return of Dunn Piatt and his family from Europe, 
and Mr. Smith from Washington, down to the time the testator 
was wounded—say, the last year of his active life. Dunn says: 
“ I was very much shocked, on my return, by the change 
“wrought in my absence—more apparent by my not having 
“seen him. He was much reduced, was a mere skeleton. 
“ Contrary to his usual habits, he was quiet or subdued, and 
“exhausted. He was affectionate in his manner, except when 
“excited; then his excitement was of unparalleled violence. 
“He had not the same confidence in those around him, and 
“in men generally, as before I went abroad. He was men- “tally and physically exhausted—his mind was impaired as 
“well as body.” Smith says: “I found Mr. Piatt, on my 
“return from Washington, in 1856, a mere wreck of his former 
“ self, in both body and mind.” 
These two witnesses are here quoted for the purpose of 
comparing their opinions of Mr. Piatt’s condition of body 
and mind, during this period, with that of other persons, who 
saw far more of him and had better opportunities to know 
the truth. 
Doubtless, both Dunn and Smith found him in worse 
health than they left him. Doubtless, he suffered greatly 
and frequently from ill health. Doubtless, he was sometimes 
unable to attend to business at all. Doubtless, he sometimes 
attended to business when he was very feeble. Doubtless, he 
was sometimes in low spirits and dull, as when he consulted 
Dr. Ehrmann. Doubtless, he was sometimes unequal to him- 
self, as when he tried the case of the British Consul. But 
what of this? Such things occur in the experience of every 
man. The question is, Were his mental faculties materially 
impaired? Was he such a wreck as these two gentlemen 
would have us believe ? Slight impairments of a man’s mind 
might not be noticed by his neighbors; but such a change as 
these gentlemen speak of could escape no intelligent man’s 
notice. A man, remarkable for common sense and aptitude 
for business, could not run down into a mental ruin, unfit to 
make a rational disposition of his estate, without his neigh- 
bors, especially those who had business transactions and 
professional contests with him, noticing such a melancholy 
change. And what is the testimony of these? 
Jeremiah II. Jones, who knew him for seventeen years as a 
brother lawyer, had been his tenant and lived next door but 
one to him for years, says: “I am not able to give the last 
“ date of my intercourse with Mr. Piatt. I had professional 
“intercourse with him at the last term of the Court, I think, 
“at which he attended at Cincinnati. I feel persuaded of 
“ this, because the business I had with him at that time was 
“subsequently attended to by his brother. He was then in 
“ feeble bodily health. His mind was as strong, to all appear- 
“ ance, as it ever was. He conversed with me about business 
“which we had together—suits which had been long pending; 
38 39 
“ and I perceived no change in the condition of his mind 
“ from what it had always been.” 
Isaac C. Collins, now one of the Judges of the Common 
Pleas, besides his general acquaintance of many years, was 
opposed to him in an action in the Superior Court, in which 
the property of Mrs. Thomas K. Smith was involved, w’here 
Mr. Piatt appeared in the double relation of attorney and 
next friend, and had the better of Mr. Collins in the contest, 
lie says: “I think he was a man of great sagacity and a 
“thorough knowledge of human nature—of much more than 
“ordinary talent—hold and adroit.” And then, in speaking 
of the condition of his mind at the time of this contest, in 
November, 1856, he says: “It was as active and vigorous as 
“it had been at any time during our acquaintance. I saw no 
“indication, whatever, of his mind being impaired in the 
“least.” 
Mr. Garrett, of the firm of Garrett & Cottman, was Mr. 
Piatt’s client, and had a cause in Court tried among the last, 
perhaps the very last, he ever attended to. Mr. Garrett does 
not remember the date; but it appears, from the testimony of 
Judge Van Ilamm, that the trial was in November, 1856. 
He says: “He seemed to be in very feeble health. I consid- 
ered the case was conducted with very marked ability— 
“ decidedly so.” 
Judge Van Hamm, before whom this last case was tried, 
testifies as follows: “I was acquainted with him for many 
“years before his death. He appeared as Counsel for the 
“Plaintiffs in the case of Garrett & Cottman vs. Peacock & 
“Son, which case was tried before me at the November Term, 
“1856. He appeared before me in a great many cases while 
“I was on the bench. He tried before me the case of the 
“State of Ohio vs. Harrington, who was charged with murder, 
“ at the May Term, 1856. * * I never observed any change 
“ whatever in his mind. He always managed a case with great 
“ability and shrewdness. * * I know nothing, personally, of 
“ his private affairs, or of his management of them. He had the 
“reputation of being a remarkably prudent man, and was re- 
“puted to be successful in the acquirement of property.” 
Dr. James Taylor, a dental surgeon, had been acquainted 
with Mr. Piatt, and done more or less work in his profession 40 
for him and his family every year, for seventeen years. He 
did some work for him, and had some conversation with him, 
as late as November, 1856; and, speaking of the condition 
of his mind, he says: “There was nothing about him that 
“attracted my attention to the subject. I noticed no differ- 
ence between what he was then and what he had been at 
“ any of our previous interviews.” 
Hr. Thomas Wood, of Cincinnati, says: “I was acquainted 
“with him some six or eight years. My opportunities [of 
“knowing him] were from intercourse with him as his fami- 
“ly physician, and in his family circle.” Hr. Wood was one 
of the physicians who were called in consultation with Hr. 
Harding, of Lawrenceburg, when Mr. Piatt suffered the 
injury from the saw, and visited him repeatedly on that 
occasion; so that he had been both his physician in Ohio 
and his surgeon in Kentucky. In answer to this re- 
quest, “ State now, if you please, whether you ever discov- 
ered, either before or after the injury inflicted by the saw> 
“any evidence of alienation or weakness of mind in Mr. Pi- 
att,” he says: “No, I never did. Huring the time he was 
“confined with his wound, I was informed that he was delir- 
ious at nights, but I never saw any of it. He was always 
“rational when I saw him. I supposed these aberrations to 
“be the transient delirium of fever.” 
Hamel Van Matre, esq., who had known Mr. Piatt upward of 
thirty-five years, practiced law with him, and formerly acted as 
his legal adviser, and who kept up his acquaintance with him 
as long as he was able to come to Cincinnati to attend to bu- 
siness, says: “He was a man that managed his own business 
“with extraordinary care and diligence;” and, speaking of 
the last time he ever conversed with him, he says: “He ap- 
peared then, to me, to be a man of sound mind and memo* 
“ry, as I had always considered him to be, the various times 
“I had met him, after I first became acquainted with him.” 
James S. White, esq., testifies that he had been personally 
acquainted with Mr. Piatt for ten years, and had been accus- 
tomed to hear him try causes in Court; and that he was asso- 
ciated with him as counsel in the trial of a cause as late as 
November, 1856. He says: “I considered him a man of sane 
“mind during the time I was personally acquainted with 41 
him.” And, on being asked to state what degree of vigor of 
body and mind he brought to the trial of this cause, com- 
pared with others he had heard him try, he says: “It was 
“with his usual vigor of mind. He displayed, in the trial 
“of that cause, as much ingenuity and ability as I had heard 
“him in any case before that time. He argued the case at 
“ considerable length, and with much warmth and vigor. He 
“wras, as was usual with him, remarkably witty and sarcastic. 
“His examination and cross examination of witnesses was 
“also conducted with his usual shrewdness, tact and ability. 
“He was, in body, somewhat debilitated—having had, a short 
“ time previous to the trial of that cause, an attack of sick- 
“ ness.” 
"William Chidsey, esq., had known Col. Piatt, as lawyer and 
citizen, for twelve years. For the last five years he was inti- 
mate with him by reason of his position as a magistrate. He 
used to do a great deal of business in his office—had a large 
number of cases before him; and he believes he was as 
strong-minded and sensible a man as he ever knew. And, 
after giving a general account of Col. Piatt’s character, he 
goes on to say: “I was present at the execution of the deed 
“by Daniel Riley to Col. Piatt (I think on the 3d of Februa- 
ry, 1857), and of the mortgage by Col. Piatt to Daniel Ri- 
“ley, in the capacity of a notary public, and took the ac- 
knowledgment of the parties both to the deed and the mort- 
gage, and was also an attesting witness to the same. Dan- 
iel Riley, sr., and Daniel, jr., were present—also John H. 
“Piatt and some others whom I do not remember. I had a 
“conversation with Col. Piatt at the time on the subject of 
“the purchase of the property. I remember well that he 
“ said he had given more for the property than it was actual- 
“ly worth, on account of its proximity to his other property, 
“I believed his mind to be perfectly sound-—as much so as 
“any man’s could be. We conversed about other matters— 
“ about general matters—and liis mind was perfectly clear.” 
Daniel Riley, jr., resides in Cincinnati, and was well ac- 
quainted with Col. Piatt. He says, in speaking of the trans- 
action stated by Mr. Chidsey to have taken place on the 3d 
of February, 1857: “I can state no dates. I was present 
“when he gave his note for $1,000, and his check for $1,000, “ for a piece of property on Seventh street which he bought 
“from my father. There was also a mortgage executed by 
“him at the same time. My father made Col. Piatt a deed 
“for the property at the same time. Esquire Chidsey was 
“present, Mr. Piatt himself, and, I think, his son, and my- 
“self. His mind was just as sound that day as it ever was; 
“ and I have known him for twenty-five years. I considered 
“his mind, at all times, just as sound as anybody’s on earth. 
“I never saw much difference in him, and I have known 
“ him for, probably, thirty years—for twenty-five years, sure. 
“I have known him almost as long as I have known any- 
“body—since I was a boy. I never saw any change in him 
“from the time I first knew him, till the time I last saw 
“ him.” 
Judge Parker says: “My first acquaintance with Mr. Pi- 
“att was in 1852 or 1853, and in May, 1854, I was appointed 
“one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Ham- 
ilton county, which place I occupied until February, 1857. 
“During that period, I sawT Mr. Piatt almost daily, and he 
“was frequently engaged in cases before me. I frequently 
“had personal intercourse with him off the bench, during 
“ that period.” And, speaking of his latest intercourse with 
the testator, he says: “ So far as Mr. Piatt’s mind and mem- 
“ory was concerned, I never, either at that time or at any 
“other time, even suspected that it was unsound, or different 
“ from that of other men of the same degree of intelligence 
“and education.” 
Mr. Daly had studied the law with Mr. Piatt and afterward 
been his partner in the practice; and, from the account he 
gives, must have had a very great deal of intercourse with 
him, keeping up his acquaintance as long as Mr. Piatt was 
able to come to Cincinnati. He says: “Mr. Piatt was a very 
“able manager of his business. Ho man could be more so.” 
And again: “I think, in 1856,1 rode up with him in the cars 
“from Lawrenceburg, and we had a long conversation. His 
“mind seemed to me as vigorous as ever. I had other con- 
versations during the same year with him, perhaps three or 
“four times, and recognized no difference in his perception of 
“business matters. I have never found him otherwise than 
42 43 
“shrewd, and full of strong common sense, In all my inter- 
course with him.” 
Mrs. Stille', with whom he took his meals when he came to 
Cincinnati, says: “ I was acquainted with Mr. Piatt, and lived 
“ next door to him, being his tenant, for five or six years. 
“My acquaintance with him continued up to about the mid- 
dle of February, 1857.” Again: “My business transac- 
tions with him were as his tenant. I never discovered any 
“ decay of intellect in him. His mind remained vigorous, so 
“ long as I had any acquaintance with him, so far as my 
“ knowledge extended.” 
Judge Tilden had seven years’ acquaintance with the testa- 
tor, during which time he had been employed by him in the 
line of his profession. His opportunities of knowing the con- 
dition of his mind, in the latter years of his life, were great 
and numerous. His answer to the proper interrogatory, after 
giving the history of his acquaintance, is: “It may, perhaps, 
“be proper to premise, that, having been informed that the 
“mental capacity of Mr. Piatt had been questioned, I have 
“been led to recall some of the incidents of our intercourse, 
“and to the formation of an opinion upon the point thus 
“ raised. And, I am obliged to say, that, although he was 
“in some respects (I mean in his mode of social intercourse), 
“peculiar, perhaps eccentric, he was a man of clear percep- 
tions, of very decided opinions, and, generally, I should say, 
“of sound mind. In the latter periods of his life, to which 
“my attention is particularly directed, he suffered much from 
“sickness and disease, and I saw nothing of him after he re- 
tired to his farm in Kentucky and to his sick room. But, 
“ whilst he was sufficiently strong to get around and come to 
“the city, I saw and conversed with him occasionally, espe- 
“cially upon the subject of the malady which afflicted him; 
“and I can recollect no remark, and no incident, which would 
“make me suspect any aberration of mind, or the existence 
“ of any delusion, or indicate any decay of intellect.” 
Rufus King, esq., had known Mr. Piatt personally since 
1842 or 1843, and had known him by reputation much long- 
er. In speaking of the last occasion on which he conversed 
with him, he says: “There "was nothing in Mr. Piatt’s con- 
versation or conduct, either then or previously, that ever 44 
“ suggested a doubt, in my mind, as to the soundness of his 
“ mind.” 
Judge Storer, of the Superior Court, a witness called to in- 
validate the will, says: “I became acquainted with Mr. Piatt, 
“I think, before he was admitted to the bar; and since his 
“ admission to practice as an attorney at law, until the time 
“of his death, a period, I think, of nearly thirty years, if not 
“ more, I have known him well.” And the testimony of 
Judge Collins shows that Air. Piatt tried a cause before Judge 
Storer as late as November, 1856. When this question is 
asked Judge Storer: “As long as Air. Piatt continued to 
“practice his profession, did you ever notice any impairment 
“ of his mental faculties ?” He answers briefly—“ Never.” 
Judge Spencer, of the Superior Court, says: “I am a resi- 
“ dent of Cincinnati and have been all my life. I was inti- 
“ mately acquainted with the late Jacob AY. Piatt, from the 
“ earliest recollections of my boyhood—say forty years.” And, 
coming down from his earliest to his last recollections, he says: 
“ The last time I recollect having seen and observed him, was, 
“on the occasion of atrial between Humble & Son and himself, 
“growing out of the erecting of the front of some houses on 
“ Pearl street, which had before then been erected for Air. 
“Piatt. He was a witness in the case. The trial alluded to 
“ occurred a few days, perhaps a fortnight, before he received 
“an injury in his knee, as I understood, from a saw. He ap- 
peared to be then in his usual health, although he had been, 
“ a short time before that, perhaps, an invalid. His memory, 
“then, appeared to be good and his mind in its usual condi- 
“ tion.” 
To these fifteen respectable witnesses might be added many 
more to the same effect; but, as their testimony is referred 
to in other parts of this argument, let these suffice for the 
present. 
The gauge of testamentary capacity, under the Statute of 
Kentucky, is, that the testator shall be of sound mind when 
he executes his will. By this phrase it is not to he understood 
that the testator had a perfect mind; or, that he had a mind 
equal to the common order of mind; or, that his mind, at the 
time he executed his will, was as souud as it had been at some 
Y. 45 
other time; or, that he had a mind unimpaired by disease: if 
the testator, at the time he executed the will, had mind suffi- 
cient to recollect the property he intended to dispose of, the 
persons to whom he intended to give it, and the manner in 
which he wished to distribute it among them; if, in short, at 
the time he executed the will, he had a mind sound enough 
to know and understand the business in which he was en- 
gaged, it is sufficient. 
Jarman on Wills, 50, 51, 52, 53 and notes; Lowe vs. Wil- 
liamson, 1 Green's Ch. R., 82; Stevens vs. Vancleve, 4 Wash. 
C. C. JR., 262; Stewart's Ex. vs. Lispenard, 26 Wendall, 255; 
Harrison vs. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. R., 580; Sloan vs. Max- 
wcll, 2 Green's Ch’y R., 563; Whitenack vs. Stryker, 1 Green’s 
Ch'y R., 8; Turnbull vs. Gibbons, 2 Zabrisca, 133; Ingram vs. 
Wyatt, 1 Haggard, 167; Shelford on Lunacy, 274, 275, 276, 
277; Potts et al. vs. House, 6 Georgia R., 324; Carroll vs. Nor- 
ton, 3 Bradford, 291; Williams vs. Goude § Bennett, 1 Haggard, 
252; Barry vs. Butlin, 1 Curtis, 637; Jackson vs. King, 4 Cow- 
an, 207; James et al. vs. Langdon, 7 B. Monroe, 658; Reed's 
Will, 2 B. Monroe, 78; Revised Statutes of Kentucky, 693. 
The rule of law, thus diversified, is amply sustained by de- 
cided cases, and requires no argument. The law does not al- 
low men to sound each other’s depths of reason and gauge 
each other’s capacities, and say, this man or that has not ca- 
pacity to make a rational distribution of property, or to take 
a comprehensive survey of an estate. If the testator remem- 
bered the objects of his bounty, knew wThat he had to give 
them, and understood how he meant to divide it, the law is 
satisfied. Was the testator within this rule of law when he 
made his will? 
The instrument itself is the first and highest evidence, if it 
is proven to be the work of the testator. This instrument, 
according to all the proof on the point, was dictated by him- 
self alone, without any one to refresh his memory or suggest 
an idea. After a rough draft wTas made, he read it carefully 
over and made such interlineations as he thought proper, and 
submitted it to his wife, his father and mother. None of their 
suggestions commended themselves to his judgment and he 
refused to make any alterations. He ordered it to be en- 
grossed, and, after engrossment, read it over carefully again, 46 
and said it was all right. There can be no doubt, then, that 
this instrument is an exact type of his mind at the time. 
Does it, on its face, indicate testamentary capacity, according 
to the rule laid down ? 
First: Does it show that the testator called to mind all the 
objects of his bounty and knew who they were and what re- 
lations they sustained toward him ? He begins with his wife, 
and declares it to be Lis will that she shall take, in her own 
right, so much property as the law allows her in the several 
States where it lies, and no more. He calls Mrs. Jenkins to 
mind, and describes her as the only surviving child of his mar- 
riage with Caroline Canfield, remembering that her sister, Mrs. 
Shoemaker, was dead. He calls to mind John II. Piatt as his 
only surviving child by his marriage with Harriet Lanman, 
knowing that there was no other: and, to these two children 
he gives specific devises. He then calls to mind his seven 
young children, by his third marriage, one by one, naming 
them all in regular succession, from the eldest to the youngest. 
With this instrument of writing before the eye of the Court, 
the opinions of doctors (from what they saw of him three days 
afterward and from what they imagined to be his mortal dis- 
ease), that he bad not capacity to call to mind the objects of 
his bounty and understand the relations between him and 
them, are “ as nothing and vanity.” 
Second: Does it show that he knew what property he had 
to distribute among his family? It appears, from the will, 
that he had property in three States—Ohio, Kentucky and Illi- 
nois. His plan of distribution made it necessary that he 
should describe, specifically, three items only. The house and 
lot which he gave to Mrs. Jenkins he describes, from mere 
memory, as “ a lot of ground with the improvements thereon, 
“thirty feet square, on the south side of Hew street, about 
“sixty feet east of Sycamore street, in the city of Cincinnati, 
“ Ohio, whereon is erected a three story brick dwelling 
“house.” He describes the property he intended for John, 
as “ my entire Law Library, now in his possession, in the city 
“of Cincinnati, Ohio, this being all I intend to give to my said 
“ son.” He describes the property set apart as a residence for 
his widow and children, and, ultimately, to be given to one of 
his sons who shall choose the occupation of a farmer, as “the 47 
“homestead farm at Federal Hall.” He describes that which 
is not specifically devised, as “ all the rest and residue of my 
“ estate, real, personal and mixed, in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, 
“or elsewhere.” Can any body read this will and pretend 
that its author did not know what property he had to distrib- 
ute among his family? Ignorant people, who have the 
words “ comprehensive survey ” put in their mouths by sug- 
gestive questions, without themselves “ comprehending ” what 
a “survey” means, may say what they may; but here is the 
internal evidence before the eyes of the Court. 
Third: Does it show that the testator understood the man- 
ner in which he wished this property to be distributed among 
the objects of his bounty? He gives Mrs. Jenkins a life-estate 
only in her portion, with remainder to her children; provid- 
ing that if she shall die without children surviving her, the 
estate shall revert. He gives the Law Library to his son 
John outright, declaring this to be the only portion he intends 
to give him. He selects the homestead farm, at Federal Hall, 
where the ashes of his grandfather repose and where he him- 
self was born, as a residence for his family, where his widow 
may reside and his children may be reared “ free from the 
“ contaminating influences of towns and cities.” He author- 
izes his executrix to sell real estate, if necessary, to defray the 
expenses of educating his children, but for no other purpose 
whatever. lie appoints his wife executrix, guardian and trus- 
tee, and commits the property of the minor children to her keep- 
ing during their minority, so that she may the better control 
their persons by having also the control of their estates. He or- 
ders his estate, after the purposes of maintenance and education 
are accomplished, to be divided among his seven minor chil- 
dren (naming them), or the survivors of them, in equal pro- 
portions, share and share alike. He authorizes and empowers 
the trustee to apportion and set off, by deeds or otherwise, 
the said estate to the said children, as they shall come of law- 
ful age, according to her sense of justice and equality. He 
orders “ the homestead farm at Federal Hall to be set off to 
“ one of his sons who shall choose the occupation of a farmer.” 
Apprehending that a second marriage of his wife might, indi- 
rectly, work injustice in the distribution of the-estate, or en- 
tangle his children in disputes with a stranger, he takes the 48 
executorship, the guardianship and trust out of her hands, in 
the event of a second marriage. Is it safe, with this instru- 
ment before him, for a man of sense to say that the testator 
did not understand the manner in which he wished to dis- 
tribute his estate among the objects of his bounty? 
Take, then, the will itself, and try it by its own internal 
evidence, and see whether its author had what the law 
regards as testamentary capacity. 
It is out of the question that any scrivener, without the 
dictation of a clear and powerful mind, in the full possession 
of all its faculties, acting on a plan fully matured before 
hand, could, in one day and on three pages of cap, concen- 
trate so completely the evidence of all the capacity of mind 
which the law requires to make a valid last will and testa- 
ment. 
The next and the most natural and important inquiry is, 
how did the testator conduct the common and ordinary affairs 
of life before, at and after, the time when he made his will? 
And, to be certain of including the time when Mr. and Mrs. 
Dunn Piatt returned from Europe, and Mr. Smith returned 
from Washington City, let us extend our inquiries back a 
year. During that time he was constantly engaged in busi- 
ness, either as attorney for others or in the management of 
his own private affairs. He bought and sold property— 
pulled down old houses and built new ones—built fences and 
tilled fields—planted orchards and cultivated gardens; and, 
being in the transition state between the lawyer and the 
farmer, his mind was at once burtliened with the labor 
of closing up his old business and opening up the new. 
With all this on his hands, it is impossible it should have 
escaped notice, if there wms any serious falling off" or defect 
in his business capacity. One who leads the life of a hermit, 
excluded from the busy world, might have great mental aber- 
rations, nay, might be insane outright, and no one know it, 
simply because he came in contact with no one. But in a 
populous city, employed in a profession which, of all others, 
exposes one to observation, and which, of all others, tests 
most rigidly the power and perspicacity of the human mind— 
in daily conflict with hundreds of other lawyers—it is incon- 
ceivable that any material impairment should have taken 49 
place in the testator’s mind, within the last year, without 
being noticed by his professional brethren. And yet, among 
several hundred lawyers who were well acquainted with him, 
no one is found who can say that he discovered any change: 
the uniform testimony of the legal profession is, that, down 
to the day he was disabled by the wound in his knee, his 
mind was as clear as it ever had been. 
J-ust one year before he made his will he was defending 
Harrington against a charge of murder; and, though in feeble 
health then, tried the case with his usual ability. A few 
weeks before he received his wound, he tried the case of 
Garrett & Cottman vs. Peacock & Son; and, though he was 
so weak in body that he sat upon the table to make his argu- 
ment, he tried the case, as his client swears, “ with very marked 
“ ability.” Still later in life he appeared as a witness before 
Judge Spencer, in the Humble case, and underwent a long 
and critical examination, in which, as Judge Spencer and 
other witnesses swear, he testified with clearness of mind and 
memory. During the whole of this year he was engaged, 
more or less, in the practice of his profession: and the uniform 
testimony of the Judges before whom he practiced, and of 
the Counsel with whom and against whom he was engaged, 
is, that his mind was as clear and vigorous as ever. 
It is said, by Hiram Robinson and Dunn Piatt, that, in the 
case of the British Consul, he did not acquit himself as he 
might have done. That is quite possible. Mr. Piatt was not 
always equal to himself—and, on this occasion, may have 
fallen below some of the intellectual giants who struggled 
against him. But it is a matter of history that he won his 
case—and that is more than the best of us can always do. 
But the matter now in hand is not to show that he was a 
great man or a profound lawyer, but to note the fact, that, 
through the whole of the year in which it is pretended he 
was a wreck, he is not shown to have mismanaged one mat- 
ter of business, whether connected with his old business as 
an Ohio lawyer, or his new business as a Kentucky farmer. 
His uncle Abram, indeed, mentions an instance which 
looked to him as if the testator was crazy. He purchased, 
in Cincinnati, a boat load of old doors, windows, shutters, 
and other parts of old houses, and carried them down to his 50 
farm. It is well known to every body who has ever lived in 
a growing city, where thousands of old houses are pulled 
down and thousands of new ones built up every year, that 
doors ready painted, windows ready glazed, cupboards all 
complete, and every other variety of joiner-work, of better 
material and workmanship than modern builders put up, can 
be purchased at auction for all but nothing. If Mr. Piatt, 
having no use for such things, had gone about purchasing 
them on speculation, he would have made himself ridiculous. 
But Federal Hall, the mansion of his grandfather, had been 
burnt out, and wTas to be refitted. His office and library 
room, his farm-house and out-houses of various kinds, were 
to be built—and these materials, which troubled the mind of 
his uncle so much, supplied all these purposes at one-fourth 
the ordinary cost, and left the fragments, worth all he had 
paid, for kindling wood. This instance is worthy of notice 
only because it is a fair sample of the facts on which the wit- 
nesses in this case seek to impeach the sanity of one of the 
most sagacious men that ever lived amongst us. 
After Mr. Piatt suffered the wound in his knee, he contin- 
ued to transact business, whenever he -was not racked with 
paroxysms of pain, to the last day of his life. During his 
illness, from day to day, he gave orders to his foreman and 
instructions to his agent in the same clear and rational man- 
ner he had always done. He settled old accounts and drew 
checks on his bankers to the amount of $3,841 95; and, on 
the very day he died, he made a loan of several thousand 
dollars to his brother-in-law, Gen. Worthington. And, what 
is remarkable in all this is, that not one of the -witnesses has 
been able to recall or state a single instance of a bad bargain, 
or a foolish, weak or improvident transaction in which he 
was engaged, from the day his brother Dunn came home 
from Europe, and his kinsman Smith came home from Wash- 
ington, down to the hour of his death. 
His peculiar views about government, about education, 
about religion, about any thing and every thing except busi- 
ness, are constantly put forward to prove that he lacked 
capacity for business. 
There is one other consideration bearing on the question of 
testamentary capacity, which may as well be stated here as 51 
elsewhere: it is, the light in which the testator’s friends and 
family, but more especially the persons now contesting his 
will, and the witnesses on whose testimony they rely, must 
have regarded him. And, for greater brevity, this inquiry 
shall be confined to the interval of time between the wound 
he received in his knee and his death. 
His venerable father, whose understanding and integrity 
are not yet impeached by his children, did not hesitate to 
transact business and settle accounts with him; and he states, 
under oath (and his veracity is not yet impeached), that, if he 
had doubted his capacity, he would not have transacted busi- 
ness with him. 
His son-in-law, Thomas C. Jenkins, one of the contestors 
of the will, visited him on the 11th of May, eight days 
before the will was made, and, without questioning his sanity 
at that time, received his check for $500.00, by way of souve- 
nir to him and his wife. 
On the 18tli of May, the day before the will was made, the 
principal contestor and his principal witness, John H. Piatt 
and Dunn Piatt, were at Federal Hall on business. Dunn 
has not given us an account of the condition of his brother’s 
mind on that day; but he has left record evidence of what 
both he and John thought about his capacity for business. 
For the purpose of setting aside a judgment, in the Superior 
Court of Cincinnati, against Mr. Piatt, they prepared a long- 
affidavit, in John’s hand-writing, setting forth minutely a 
series of facts which transpired when Dunn was in Europe 
and John in college—facts which could be known only to 
Mr. Piatt himself. Amongst other statements contained in 
this affidavit, are these: That, by reason of his wound, he 
had been unable to attend Court in Cincinnati—that his own 
evidence in the case was material—and that, if the judgment 
were opened up and the cause set for a future day, he hoped 
to be able to give his deposition, or to attend Court in person, 
if the Court should prefer it, and give his evidence. An oath 
to this affidavit was administered by John, as notary. The 
affidavit was filed by Dunn, as attorney for his brother. And, 
on this, Judge Storer opened up the judgment. 
That all parties meant what was said, when a hope was 
expressed that the affiant would be able to come to Cincin- 52 
nati and testify in the case, if the Court should so order, is 
clear from two other instruments of evidence. John, in a 
letter to his sister Belle, after his father came to Cincinnati 
to take the baths, informs her that, to have the benefit of 
Dr. Murphy’s treatment, he is either coming to Cincinnati or 
Dr. Murphy goingto Federal Hall once a week; and expresses 
a preference for the former, because he is now able to travel, 
and the trips will do him good. And Dunn, in a letter to his 
brother, after he returned to Federal Hall, expresses a hope 
to see him again before long at his house in Cincinnati. 
The only conclusion which can be drawn in relation to this 
affidavit, consistent with decency, honesty or fair practice, is, 
that, at the time it was drawn up and sworn to, these gentle- 
men believed the affiant was of sound mind and memory, 
sufficient to remember and state the facts set forth in it—that 
he was competent to give a deposition or to testify in a Court 
of Justice, and that there was a reasonable prospect that he 
would be able, shortly, to attend Court in Cincinnati for that 
purpose. If they did not believe this, John committed a 
melancholy blunder in drawing up a statement for a crazy fa- 
ther, which he could not have understood, and part of which 
he knew to be false, and going through the solemn mockery of 
administering an oath to him. But John practiced no such 
wickedness. He was too young to be so corrupt. lie be- 
lieved his father was capable of remembering and under- 
standing the statements to which he s'wore. He believed 
there was a reasonable prospect that he would be able to at- 
tend Court in Cincinnati. He believed that, when he did at- 
tend Court, he would be competent to testify. 
Dunn’s position, if they did not so believe, was still worse. 
First, he was a party to the making a false statement, under 
oath, by a crazy brother. Second, he practiced a fraud on 
the Court by presenting this statement as a genuine affidavit. 
It does not mend the matter to say, as Dunn now says, that 
this paper was intended only for a professional statement. It 
only suggests another professional fraud, to say that a paper in- 
consistent with truth, which the Court received at his hands 
and acted on as a true affidavit of the party, was, in fact, on- 
ly intended as a professional statement of the attorney. And, 
if it was a professional statement of an attorney, what then? 53 
Ought not the professional statement of an attorney be true? 
The professional statement of a lawyer, like the honor of an 
English Peer, is received in Court as equivalent to the oath 
of another man; and, if a lawyer is known to abuse this high 
privilege, it shakes one’s confidence in his testimony: because 
one can not help asking the question, Which is the more rep- 
rehensible act, extracting a false and inconsistent statement 
from a crazy client, or making it himself. View this matter 
as we may, Dunn’s explanation is very unsatisfactory. There 
is but one view of it consistent at once with honor and fair- 
dealing on the part of these two gentlemen, and of Christian 
charity on our part; and that is, that both of them acted fair- 
ly and in good faith at the time, and that Dunn’s memory 
lias since failed him. 
Again. We find Thomas Tv. Smith, who professes, on his 
return from Washington, to have found the testator “ a perfect 
wreck of his former self ”—when he was about to sutler the 
last and heaviest calamity of a politician—when he was in 
dread of losing his office, through the influence of Senator 
Pugh and the condemnatory vote of the U. S. Senate—flying 
to this “wreck,” this imbecile, this maniac, for counsel and 
assistance. 
After the will was made, these people still treated him as 
if they considered him competent to transact business. Dunn 
Piatt admitts, that, before the testator came to his house on 
Broadway, he told Mr. Johnston that he meant to re-write 
the will, and get Archbishop Purcell and some other priest to 
speak to him about making a different disposition of his. 
property. The happy joke vdiich he makes, under oath, 
about knowing the influence Father Driseol had over him, 
does not mend the matter. Unless he believed his brother 
competent to make a will, it would have been knavish, through 
the influence of Bishop Purcell, or Mr. Driseol, or any body 
else, to persuade him to make one. 
On this same visit to Cincinnati, as we have seen elsewhere, 
Bishop Purcell did endeavor to induce the testator to make a 
different will. His father and mother made the same endeav- 
or, in the presence of Mrs. Louise Piatt, who, as an honest 
woman, ought to have put an end to such importunities, prac- 
ticed on a sick man in her own house, unless she believed, at 54 
the time, that he was competent to do the act which he was 
importuned to do. I am loth to think, that a man of Arch- 
bishop Purcell’s high character would use his influence to per- 
suade a man in a state of imbecility into an act requiring the 
exercise of reason. And as to B. M. Piatt, he has stated, un- 
der oath, his principle of action: if he had entertained any 
doubts about the testator’s capacity, he would have had noth- 
ing to do with the matter. 
What further do we find? After the testator’s return to 
Federal Hall, Dunn writes him a business letter, asking him, 
on behalf of Gen. Worthington, for the loan of a large sum 
of money; and, on the day of his death, only a few hours 
before he expired, he draws up a check for $2322 50, the 
proceeds of the loan, and obtains his brother’s signature to 
it—and the money is paid on it. This letter speaks for it- 
self and can not be explained away. That part in which he 
expresses the hope of seeing his brother again, shortly, at his 
own house, may, as he says, have been written merely to cheer 
him up; but the business part of it was written to obtain money. 
What further? The night the testator died, Dr. Mudd, 
sick and worn out with watching, went to his room for a lit- 
tle repose; and there he found Dunn Piatt writing a codicil 
for him to sign. He asked the Doctor’s opinion whether his 
brother was in a condition of mind to execute it. The Doctor 
expressed a wfish that it could be done, but told him it was too 
late. Why should he write this codicil unless he believed 
the testator capable of executing it Why 
should he propound such a question to Dr. Mudd, but that he 
knew his brother was dying, and wished to know of a medi- 
cal man, who had just come from his bed-side, whether he had 
yet vigor of mind to comprehend what he was about to ask 
him to do ? He says he wrote this codicil at Dr. Mudd’s sug- 
gestion. This is entirely inconsistent with the Doctor’s ac- 
count of the transaction, and is but a child’s apology at best. 
How does it mend the matter, if Dr. Mudd did make the 
suggestion? This full grown man, of forty years, was not 
bound to stultify himself by withdrawing from his brother’s 
death-bed to a solitary room and drafting an instrument of 
writing which he knew could serve no purpose, merely be- 
cause Dr. Mudd suggested it. 55 
Whether J. W. Piatt was sane or insane during his last ill- 
ness, one thing can not be denied: his friends and relatives, 
including both those who contest the will as parties, and 
those who contest it as witnesses, dealt with him as if they 
believed, at the time, that his mind was sound. 
VI. 
Partial insanity, or monomania, is not sufficient to invali- 
date a will, unless it appears, from the evidence, that the will 
was the product of an insane delusion, under which the testator 
is proved to have labored at the time of its execution. Nor 
will prejudices against one to whom the testator is supposed 
to have done injustice in his will, though strong and unrea- 
sonable, be sufficient, unless they were founded upon some 
insane delusion, proved to have existed in the mind of the 
testator at the time the will w'as executed: 
Shelford on Lunacy, 41; 1 Jarman on Wills, 58, 59—43, 44— 
62 to 64; Greenwood vs. Greenwood, 3 Curtis, Appendix 1; 3 
Curtis, Appendix, 30, 31; White vs. Wilson, 13 Vesey, Jur., 87; 
Lew vs. Clarke, 3 Adams, 79; Shelford on Lunacy, 296, 297; 
1 Adams, 279; 2 Adams, 102; 3 Adams, 79; Boyd vs. Lby, 8 
Watts, 66; Falleck, vs. Allison, 3 Haggard, 527-547; James et 
al. vs. Langdon, 7 B. Monroe, 198; Heed’s Will, 2 B< Monroe, 
80; Singleton’s Will, 8 Dana, 321. 
Partial insanity, or monomania, is defined to be an insane 
delusion on one subject, while the mind is rational on all 
others. But what is an insane delusion? It is not every 
delusion that is an insane one. It is not error in judgment; 
it is not want of proper information; it is not false informa- 
tion. That which the law regards as an insane delusion is, 
where a person, from the disorder of his mind, believes a 
thing to exist which has no existence. Mr. Jarman relates 
two cases to illustrate the difference between insane delusions 
and other delusions: 
1st. A man is sick of fever, and his brain affected. Just 
as insanity takes its ground, his brother administers to 
him a draught of medicine, which, from the disordered state 
of his mind, he believes to be poison. He recovers, both 
from his fever and his insanity, except this one insane 
idea, that his brother had poisoned him; and, acting upon 56 
this idea, when he comes to make his will, he disinherits his 
brother. 
2d. A clergyman of the established Church, together with 
all his household, are poisoned, or seem to be poisoned; 
and he takes up the belief that his kinsman, whose office it 
was to collect his tithes, has poisoned him and his household 
by bringing him unwholesome and poisonous provisions. 
There is no satisfactory proof of his kinsman’s guilt in the 
matter, but he adheres to the belief; and, acting upon it, 
when he comes to make his will, he disinherits his kinsman. 
Allowing both these parties to have been equally innocent, 
there is yet this broad distinction between the action of the 
two testators: the delusion of the former was an insane 
delusion—the delusion of the latter was an error in judg- 
ment on the weight of evidence. The former had no found- 
ation for his belief, except insane delusion. The latter had 
some foundation for the belief that'lie was poisoned, and cir- 
cumstances pointed to his kinsman as the poisoner. 
In utter dispair of proving a case of general derangement 
or imbecility of mind on the part of the testator, the Broad- 
way junto assume that he was partially insane—he was a 
monomaniac on the subject of the Catholic religion. This is 
the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, of all 
that Dunn Piatt, Louise Piatt, and Thomas K. Smith, have to 
say. Every fact they state, and every opinion they express, 
comes home and clusters around this one central idea—he 
was a monomaniac on the subject of the Catholic Church 
and the Catholic religion. 
What insane delusion was it that possessed this man’s 
mind in regard to the Roman Catholic Church? Was it that 
he believed the Church to be infallible? Was it that he 
believed in the Apostolic Succession? Was it that he believed 
in the Seven Sacraments? O, no! What then? Why, his 
zeal was so extravagant as to amount to madness! lie acted 
under an insane belief that he was divinely called to promote, 
right or wrong, the interests of the Church, and to make 
converts to the Catholic faith! 
I have known intimately and conversed frequently with a 
religious monomaniac, who, for half a century, constantly 
acted under an insane delusion that he was divinely called to 57 
preach the Gospel. He was a truly religious man, and, at 
first, desired to enter the ministry in the Church wherein he 
was converted. But no one, except himself, thought he was 
called to preach. He must and would preach—but his 
brethren would not allow him to preach—and he withdrew 
from them and preached by Divine authority alone. He car- 
ried a copy of the Scriptures in his bosom, and read, and 
annotated, and marked, and folded down, till he became a 
walking concordance, and could in a moment turn up any 
text, appropriate or inappropriate, to prove a point. Still his 
ministry was not attended with such success as to prove his 
mission Divine. He never made a convert in his life, nor did 
any one ever attend with seriousness to his preaching. Still 
he preached on, nothing daunted by his want of success. He 
would not work, though a robust old man and a skillful 
mechanic, for the one powerful reason—God had called him to 
labor in his vineyard. He was too poor to own a horse; and, 
as he grew too old to itinerate on foot, his own house became 
his chapel, and here he held forth daily, with or without an 
audience, save a good old wife, who, like the good Kadijah, 
believed the prophet when no one else would. With poverty 
around him and starvation staring him in the face, he trusted 
for his bread at the hand of Providence, with a faith worthy 
of Elijah, and sang with raptures: 
“ His saints what is fitting shall ne’er be denied, 
So long as ’tis written, the Lord will provide.” 
Here was a well defined case of religious monomania. 
But what fact is there in the life of J. W. Piatt to show 
that he was a religious monomaniac? Here the rule of law 
applies with peculiar force: not the opinions of the witnesses 
only, but the facts, must be given. 
Mrs. Louise Piatt tells us, that “he could not talk for ten 
“minutes, on any matter, before leading the conversation into 
“religion. I never saw him, that our conversation did not 
“ ultimately lead into this same theme. It was the same with 
“ others when I was present. He seemed to be imbued with 
“the belief that such was his mission. We have conversed 
“ hours on Catholicism.” 
The same idea is held out by Dunn Piatt and T. K. Smith— that the testator was a sort of spiritual Don Quixote, going 
about in quest of adventures, and laboring under an insane 
delusion that he was called of God to the work of making 
converts to the Church. If he had labored under an insane 
delusion that it was his duty to make converts to the 
Church, he would unquestionably have been heard from in a 
city of two hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants. Igna- 
tius Loyola, himself, had not a stronger will, a more ardent 
temper, a more untiring industry, than J. W. Piatt. He was 
a man in easy circumstances, could command money at pleas- 
ure, and had no excuse for idleness. What was the extent 
of his missionary labors? IIow many converts did he make? 
How many did he attempt to make? To whom did he speak 
on the subject? Whom did he attempt to force into the 
Catholic Church? lie tried to persuade his sister, Louise, to 
become a Catholic. He recommended religion, instead of 
politics, to T. K. Smith, and advised him to read certain re- 
ligious books. He made an affectionate appeal to his father 
to come back again to the Church from whence he had 
strayed. And he advised his son to investigate the claims of 
the Church. This is all—absolutely all! Seventy-one wit- 
nesses have been examined—all of them, or nearly so, his in- 
timate acquaintances—and not an instance, except these four, 
can be found. Even his brother Dunn, who needed religion 
as much as most people—his uncle Abram, who needed it al- 
most as much—and his affectionate cousin Ben, who was 
about his person so much, and did him so many offices of 
kindness in his last days on earth—were never spoken to on 
the subject. If an earnest, honest man, recommends the re- 
ligion he believes, and in which he hopes for salvation, to 
four, and onty four, of his nearest relatives, it is absurd to de- 
nounce him as a religious maniac. There is a degree of ex- 
travagance in the statement unbefitting the sober reality of the 
case. Taking all the testimony together, and allowing some 
degree of credit to other witnesses, there perhaps never was 
a religious man less obtrusive in the advocacy of his own re- 
ligious views, or who meddled less with the views of others. 
Judge Storer, a witness on the other side, who knew him in- 
timately for thirty years, and down to the day he was disa- 
bled by the saw-cut in his knee, says: “I never had any par- 
58 59 
“ticular conversation with him on religious subjects. I have 
“heard him, in the general, express his opinions on his peculiar 
“faith; but never, that I recollect, was he obtrusive or dis- 
“ posed to proselyte. He was very warm in the mode of his 
“ expression, but never to my knowledge offensive to others.” 
Judge Spencer says: “I was intimately acquainted with 
“the late Jacob W. Piatt, from the earliest recollections of 
“ my boyhood—say forty years.” Again: “ I am not a mem- 
“ber of the Catholic Church, and I do not know whether 
“ Mr. Piatt was or was not in the habit of using exertions to 
“proselyte to that Church among his intimate friends. He 
“ never exerted himself toward me in that matter—and I have 
“heard nothing on the subject in regard to others.” Mr. Van 
Matre, who knew him intimately and practiced law with 
him upward of thirty-five years, says: “During all my ac- 
quaintance with him, I do not recollect of his ever attempt- 
ing to influence my religious opinions, nor the religious 
“opinions of others.” The Rev. Edward Purcell, who had 
been well acquainted with him for twenty years, says: “Ido not 
“think that he was enthusiastic, much less fanatical, in his 
“ religious views; but he believed firmly and was very ardent. 
“ Such he appeared to me.” And this is the general tenor of 
the proof, wherever the minds of the witnesses were directed 
to the subject. But it is useless to compile all the evidence 
on this point. Enough is already done to show that, in the 
imaginations of these three witnesses, the interest which the 
testator felt in the religious welfare of three or four of his 
own family, is magnified into a general madness on the sub- 
ject of religion—a kind of rampant knight-errantry in relig- 
ion sufficient to derange his general understanding and dis- 
qualify him for business. 
But to establish the religious insanity of the testator, it is 
said he made harsh and unnatural allusions to his own father 
in his religious controversies, consigning him to perdition, and 
so on. Smith, Abram S., Dunn and Mrs. Louise Piatt, all 
relate similar stories about this—the instances referred to, 
doubtless, being identical. This will turn out another exag- 
geration of the truth, and a review of the lady’s statement 
will show that the witnesses, and not the testator, lugged their 
venerable father into these controversies. 60 
To understand this matter rightly, we must first understand 
the difference of religious faith between two divisions of the 
Piatt family. One division are orthodox Christians after the 
order of the Roman Catholic Church. Another division are 
Free-thinkers after the order of Jefferson and Franklin. The 
Roman Catholic division, at the head of which stood Jacob, 
believe, as other orthodox Christians do, in salvation through 
the atonement of Christ and the'ordinances of the Church. 
The Free-thinking division, comprising the old gentleman 
and these witnesses, expect salvation through their own good 
works. 
It is not the business now in hand to combat the doctrine 
of these people. It was the faith of Jefferson and of Frank- 
lin. 
Here, then, was the source of contention. Mr. Piatt de- 
sired the salvation of his brethren and sisters through what 
he conceived to be the only door; and they expected to climb 
up some other way. If he argued with them at all, by a law 
of his nature he was bound to do it with zeal and impetuosity. 
The principal argument used by them, was, to remind him 
how good a man his father was, and tell him that his ideas of 
salvation would exclude his own father from Heaven. In this 
way the father was dragged in, not by Jacob, but by his 
brothers and sisters. 
If ever any man merited Heaven by truth, honor, justice, 
charity and benevolence, it is Benj. M. Piatt, sr. In all these 
things, his life might put a majority of Christian professors 
to the blush ; so that, while one can not excuse the coarseness 
and indelicacy of such an argument, it must be admitted to 
be an argument ad liominem of great power. 
But J. W. Piatt was too well grounded in this cardinal 
doctrine of Christian faith to expect Grod to provide one plan 
of salvation for B. M. Piatt and another for the rest of man- 
kind. He desired for his father something more than mere 
morality, before he should be called to die. He desired for 
him an interest, through faith, in the blood of the Redeemer. 
And hence, the expression which shocked his friends so much: 
“ The only hope I have for father, is that, before he dies, he 
“will be convinced and kiss the cross, if it should be on his 
“ death-bed.” 61 
The doctrine of vicarious atonement is a great mystery, 
and faith in it is always expressed in figurative language. To 
lay hold on the Cross—to bow to the Cross—to hang upon 
the Cross—to embrace the Cross—to take up the Cross—to 
lean upon the Cross—to kiss the Cross—are a few of the ex- 
pressions used in all orthodox Churches; and “ no Cross no 
Crown” has been a maxim for hundreds of years among 
Christians. It is to this faith in the Cross, or what was en- 
acted on the Cross, our Lord alludes when he says: “As Mo- 
“ ses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the 
“ Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him 
“ should not perish but have eternal life.” 
Benjamin M. Piatt did not construe the solicitude of his 
son for his salvation as these witnesses do. He is a man T)f 
sense, a man of the world, a man of moderation—a man who, 
having had the advantages of a religious education, under- 
stood what was meant and appreciated what was felt by his 
son on his behalf too well to run into such gross folly. 
This leads to the consideration of another matter put for- 
ward to prove the testator insane about religion. Mrs. Dunn 
Piatt relates one occurrence, the only thing approximating a 
fact which either she or her husband can remember to have 
taken place, while the testator was at their house on Broad- 
way for the last time. This was the last appeal which Mr. 
Piatt made to his venerable father to return to the Church. 
In reply to this plain question, “ Will you please to repeat 
“ some of these conversations, in his own words, as nearly as 
“you can?” she says: “It would be quite impossible for me 
“ to give even the substance of disconnected sentences, such 
“ as Mr. Piatt indulged in when speaking on religious subjects. 
“ I was present at a scene which took place at my own house 
“ a few days before his death, which will, perhaps, better il- 
“ lustrate what I am asked to explain, than a repetition of 
“ language. His mother and father and my husband and I 
“ were present, when he began talking to his father on relig- 
ion. His words and manner were such as to impress all 
“present with the painful belief that they were the insane 
“ utterances of a mind enfeebled by disease. He cried like a 
“ child, and nervously played with the brass of his rosary. 
“Every one present forbore answering him for fear of in- 62 
“ creasing his excitement. At one time, when my husband 
“began speaking, his father, Benjamin M. Piatt, thinking 
“ that he was going to reply, held up his finger in a depreca- 
tory manner.” She is asked to give,the testator’s words: 
she gives a description of a mere pantomime—a dumb show, 
in which not one word or idea of the testator is either re- 
membered or repeated—such an account as might be expect- 
ed from one who was deprived of the sense of hearing. 
There is a prose version of this same story by Benjamin M. 
Piatt, sr., which it is proper to give in his own words, before 
further commentary: “As I stated before, he was a devout 
“ Catholic, as I learned from himself, his conduct, actions, &c. 
“The only thing he ever said to me on the subject,'was, that 
“I, once having been a Catholic and left the Church, he want- 
“ed me to return to it; and the last time he ever broached 
“that subject to me was at my son Bunn’s house on Broad- 
“ way. I think Bishop Purcell was present, but will not be 
“certain. I told him I could not comply with his wishes 
“without being a hypocrite, and I knew he did not want me 
“to be that. * * He said that he wished me to return to 
“the Church. That it was safe as to salvation; and that I 
“was at the head of a large connection, and it would have a 
“beneficial infiuence, having children and grand-children, 
“ and all that kind of talk.” 
There is an exact concurrence of time and place between 
the young woman and the old man—they both refer to the 
same interview. But there are points on which they differ 
widely : the young woman declares herself unable to remem- 
ber even the substance of what the testator said—the old man 
remembers and states, not only all the substance, but most of 
the words which he used. The young woman says: “His 
“ words and manner were such as to impress all present with the 
“ painful belief, that they were the insane utterances of a mind 
“ enfeebled by disease.” The old man was impressed with no 
such “painful belief”—for he testifies, elsevHiere, that, except 
when he had his paroxysms of pain, he never discovered in 
the testator any signs of mental aberration. The young wo- 
man states, that “every one present forbore answering him 
“for fear of increasing his excitement”—the old man states 
that he did answer him, and he gives us the answer, “ I told 63 
“him I could not comply with his wishes without being a 
“hypocrite, and I knew he did not want me to be that;” and 
this answer seems to have satisfied him. Now, while the 
laws of gallantry may require us to admit that the young 
woman had the more mature judgment—truth requires us to 
admit that, in the matter of memory, the old man has great- 
ly the advantage over her. To get rid of the simple, plain 
and truthful narrative of the good old father, and to let 
Dunn in with an adverse statement of this religious interview 
on Broadway, new testimony is introduced, at the last hour, 
to prove that the old gentleman has lost his memory and is 
not fit to be a witness. Doubtless his memory, as to minute 
particulars, is not so full as it once was. In youth, the per- 
ceptive and retentive faculties are stronger than after the re- 
flective period of life comes on. As men grow older and 
wiser, they no longer burthen their memories with unprofita- 
ble details, as they once did. But are they less fit to testify 
on that account? Unless the memory, from disease, becomes 
fallacious, may not the narrative of the witness be relied on 
as far as it goes ? Ought not the witness, called to impeach 
the memory of another, be able to state some instance in 
which he has known his memory to be oblivious, false or fal- 
lacious? If he can not recollect such an instance, he is him- 
self unfit for a witness. Doubly unfit—because, first, his own 
memory has failed him; and, secondly, he is reckless enough 
to swear .to what he does not know. 
None of these witnesses has given us an instance—and we 
must be excused from giving credit to their mere opinions. 
Moreover, there is a conflict of witnesses as to whether the 
old gentleman’s memory has materially failed. To settle this 
conflict, it is proper to look into the old gentleman’s testimo- 
ny, and see what are the internal evidences. He is grouped 
with several other witnesses, between whose testimony and 
his, so far as it goes, there is an exact agreement. He is con- 
tradicted in no part of his testimony till he comes in contact 
with the Broadway junto—who contrive to contradict every 
body, themselves among the rest. Besides the internal evi- 
dence which his deposition furnishes, we put in evidence 
three of his letters to his attorneys, Johnston & Carroll, on 
business. If any one will read these letters over carefully, 64 
and pretend that they do not evince a clear mind, and a good 
memory for a man at any time of life, then the idea of inter- 
nal evidence may as well be yielded up to the fanciful opin- 
ions of witnesses. 
There is but one of these impeaching witnesses whose 
position puzzles one: that is Mrs. Gen. Worthington. This 
lady is the sister of the testator, and must have known the 
condition of his mind as wrell as any other member of the 
family. Why wTas she not asked to testify to this point at 
once, instead of going round about to impeach the memory 
of her venerable father? Hush! Gen. Worthington had 
borrowed several thousand dollars of the testator the day 
before he died, and it would have been indelicate for his vTife 
to have testified on this point! 
Parties can not, in this way, get rid of the old gentleman’s 
account of this religious interview on Broadwray. It w-as to 
him, as a man who knew" howr deeply religious feelings take 
hold of the affections, a solemn and affecting scene, such as 
lie wrould not be likely to forget, even if his memory bad. 
Ilis ability to relate the arguments on both sides, after both 
these young people have forgotten them, proves that the 
occurrence deeply rooted in his memory: and his simple 
narrative is not likely to be shaken by the coarse, rude and 
unnatural version of Dunn Piatt, added to the highly colored 
and poetic account of his wfife. 
Put let both accounts stand, so far as they can stand 
together. Let it be conceded that these twro witnesses give 
the manner, and the old man the matter, of this interview; 
what does it amount to? Simply this: a man of ardent, im- 
petuous temper, knowing that he is about to die—believing 
honestly in the truth of his own religion, and preferring his 
owrn Church to all others—sees a father, whom he loves and 
all but adores, standing outside of what his Church teaches 
to be the pale of salvation; with tears in his eyes and emo- 
tion in his bosom so strong as to shake his feeble frame, he 
implores him to come back again to the fold from whence he 
had strayed! If he had not felt this solicitude for his father, 
he wmuld have been false to all the better impulses of his 
nature. If he had not made this last appeal he wrould have 65 
given the lie to his own character as an ardent, impulsive and 
earnest man. 
Every one acquainted with the biography of pious men 
and women, or who has stood by the death-bed of pious per- 
sons in possession of their faculties, must be familiar with 
scenes like this. Following Mr. Piatt’s life down still nearer 
to its close, we find him calling around his death-bed all the 
working men and women on his farm, and all the household 
servants, to join with him in prayer; and, when prayers are 
over, we hear him giving them his parental blessing and 
advice, and making a last effort to reclaim a poor drunkard. 
We see him sending for a poor Irish woman, the wife of one 
of his servants, on whose feelings his ungovernable temper 
had inflicted some injury a year before, to ask her forgiveness; 
and, when she grants it, he asks her to pray to God that he 
may have a smooth pillow. All these things accord with the 
true character of the man, as modulated and attuned to the 
tenderest touches of kindness by the power of religion. 
Religion was the rock of offense on which his infidel rela- 
tives stumbled. What was to Jacob W. Piatt “the power of 
God and the wisdom of God,” was “to these Jews a stum- 
bling block and to these Greeks foolishness.” If these wit- 
nesses had stood by while Paul preached before King Agrippa, 
relating his own religious experience and unfolding the sub- 
„lime mysteries of the Gospel, they would have joined Festus 
in exclaiming, “with a loud voice: Paul, thou art beside thy- 
self; much learning doth make thee mad.” Or, if they had 
been present on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost 
descended on the congregation like a rushing mighty wind, 
and when the mixed and miscellaneous throng, with cloven 
tongues, began to declare “the wonderful works of God,” 
they would have joined with the mockers, and said: “These 
“men are full of new wine.” Or, if they had been present 
when Kicodemus came to Jesus by night, and heard the new 
and startling announcement: “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
“ except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of 
“ God,” they would have joined with Nicodemus in the curi- 
ous inquiry: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can 
“he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be 
“born?” 66 
Another of the badges of insanity, or religious monomania, 
relied on by these witnesses, in support of their opinion, is 
thus expressed by Mrs. Louise Piatt: “There is a priest, in 
“Fulton, by the name of McMahon, who professes to cure all 
“diseases in a miraculous way, by the efficacy of his prayers;” 
and she alleges that both the testator and his wife believed in 
this man’s power. 
There is a confusion and confounding of ideas here, into 
which the witness falls, for want of a better knowledge of the 
Scriptures, to say nothing about theology. The power to 
work a miracle is a supernatural power—a powTer to reverse 
the order of nature—to say to the dead, “come forth,” to the 
lame, “rise up a*id walk,” to the leper, “be thou clean,” and 
so on. Such was the power exerted by our Lord during his 
three years’ ministry; such the power conferred on his seventy 
Disciples when he sent them out to plant his Church. 
But such power is not claimed for the ministers of any 
church at this day. Such a power is not professed by Father 
McMahon, or any other Catholic priest. But there is a belief, 
common to all Christians, that sick persons are sometimes 
recovered by the power of God, in answer to the prayers and 
faith of good people. This is what Father McMahon pro- 
fessed: this is what Mr. and Mrs. Piatt believed. The very 
fact mentioned by the witness, that “prayer” was the mean 
employed, proves this, because prayer never was a mean by 
which miracles were wrought. 
Mr. Piatt, then, and his wife, too, are proved to be insane 
because they believed, in common with all pious Jews and 
Christians, that, on behalf of the sick, “the effectual, fervent 
“prayer of the righteous availeth much.” To one who has 
basked and fluttered like a butterfly in the sunshine and 
flowers of St. Cloud, and sipped the poison of infidelity from 
the writings of Byron and Sue and Shelley, and come 
home with a head filled with French philosophy, French 
polities, French morality, French religion, French man- 
ners and French fashions, this homely old idea is proof of 
insanity. 
But it is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. It was the 
doctrine of the Jews. It is the doctrine of the Christians. 
It is at this hour the doctrine of all religious denominations, 67 
from the Roman Catholic to the Unitarian Church. Let us 
look for a moment into the authorities on this point: 
I Kings, xvii, 17, we have this record: “And it came to pass 
“after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress 
“of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore that 
“there was no breath left in him. And she said unto Elijah, 
“what have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? Art 
“thou come unto me to call my sins to remembrace, and to 
“slay my son? And he said to her, give me thy son. And 
“he took him out of her bosom and carried him up to a loft, 
“where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he 
“cried unto the Lord, and said: 0 Lord, my God, hast thou 
“also brought evil on the widow with whom I sojourn, by 
“slaying her son? And he stretched himself on the child 
“ three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said: 0 Lord, my 
“ God, I pray thee let this child’s soul come into him again. 
“And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the 
“ child came into him again, and he revived.” 
Isaiah xxxviii, 1, we have this record: “In those days was 
“Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet, the 
“son of Amoz, came unto him, and said unto him, thus saith 
“the Lord: Set thy house in order; for thou shalt die, and 
“ not live. Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and 
“ prayed unto the Lord, and said: Remember now, 0 Lord, I 
“beseech tliee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and 
“ with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in 
“ thy sight: and Hezekiah wept sore. Then came the word 
“of the Lord to Isaiah, saying: Go and say to Hezekiah, thus 
“saith the Lord, the God of David thy father: I have heard 
“thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will add unto 
“thy days fifteen years.” 
The Old Testament Scriptures abound with instances sim- 
ilar to these; and, when we turn to the Hew, they are replete 
with instances of the power of faith and prayer in healing 
the sick. James v, 14, we have this direction from an Apostle 
who learned his doctrines from the lips of his Master: 
“Is any sick among you? let him call for the Elders of the 
“Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with 
“oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall 
“ save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he 68 
“have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess 
“your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that 
“ye may be healed. The effectual, fervent prayer of a right- 
eous man availeth much.” Lightfoot, Henry, Gill, Scott, 
Benson, Clarke, and all, even the most modern, commentators 
understand this passage in the same way. 
The Book of Common Prayer, following this direction, 
has this form of prayer for the recovery of sick persons: 
“0, Father of Mercies and God of all comfort! our only 
“help in time of need: Look down from heaven, we humbly 
“ beseech thee, behold, visit, and relieve thy sick servant, for 
“ whom our prayers are desired. Look upon him with 
“the eyes of thy mercy; comfort him with a sense of thy 
“goodness; preserve him from the temptations of the enemy; 
“give him patience under his affliction; and, in thy good 
“time, restore him to health, and enable him to lead the resi- 
“ due of his life in thy fear and to thy glory,” &c. 
The journals and biographies of pious men, of all ages, re- 
cord examples of the effects of faith and prayer. "Wesley’s 
Works (vol. iv, page 499) contains one of them : “Immediate- 
ly after [preaching] a strange scene occurred. I was desired 
“to visit one who had been eminently pious, but had now 
“been confined to her bed for several months, and was utter- 
“ly unable to raise herself up. She desired us to pray, that 
“the chain might be broken. A few of us prayed in faith. 
“Presently she rose up, dressed herself and came down stairs, 
“and, I believe, had not any further complaint.” 
Lest the case of Mr. Piatt, who, when in an agony of pain, 
laid the hand of a pious minister on the suffering part and 
begged him to pray for him, and thought it did him good, 
should stand entirely alone, let us make another quotation 
from the same author (vol. iv, page 559): “Wed. 24.^—The 
“floods caused by the violent rains shut me up at Longwood 
“House. But on Thursday the rain turned to snow; so on 
“Friday I got to Halifax, where Mr. Floyd lay in a high 
“fever, almost dead for want of sleep. This was prevented 
“ by a violent pain in one of his feet, which was so swelled 
“and so sore, it could not be touched. We joined in prayer 
“ that God would fulfill his word, and give his beloved sleep. 69 
“Presently the swelling, the soreness, the pain, were gone; 
“and he had a good night’s rest.” 
There is not a pious man in Kentucky, who keeps up wor- 
ship night and morning with his family, who does not daily 
remember the sick and afflicted in his prayers; and the cus- 
tom is universal, in all Christian Churches, of every name, to 
ask the prayers of the congregation for sick persons in the 
neighborhood. It is but a few months since, that the Rev. 
Mr. Conway, in a Unitarian Convention at the East, offered 
a resolution of sympathy with Theodore Parker, then in ill 
health, and pledging the Convention to pray for his restora- 
tion to health. Why, then, should Jacob W. Piatt be ac- 
counted insane for believing what every other Christian be- 
lieves ? He believed that the prayers of Father McMahon, 
on behalf of sick persons, had been answered. This is all. 
How strong his faith was in the efficacy of his prayers in his 
own case, will be better judged of when we remember that, 
on his last visit to Cincinnati, he spent several days in the city 
without calling on Father McMahon, or Father McMahon 
calling on him. 
Another proof of the supposed insanity of the testator, is, 
that he had no more sense than to burn a large library of val- 
uable books. According to the testimony of Dunn, Abraham 
S., Louise Piatt and Smith, he spoke of burning his books 
once, perhaps several times. The lady’s account of it is the 
fullest, and runs thus: “ Some time in the winter of ’56-7, he 
“ announced to me his intention to burn all his books except 
“those of a Catholic or controversial character, on the subject 
“ of religion. He had a splendid library at his residence, 
“ which he had been collecting for years, and in such collec- 
tion, arranging and reading, he had his chief delight. When 
“I urged him not to do this, but to give the books to his 
“brother Abram, who had not the opportunity of collecting 
“ so tine a library, he replied, that would be scattering moral 
“ poison, and he intended to make a bon-fire of them. As he 
“had all the standard English authors, I said to him, you are 
“ surely not going to burn Shakspeare, Milton, Shelley, &c.; 
“ to which he replied, yes, I am going to burn them all.” 
From the account given by Abram S., corresponding in so 
many of its features with this lady’s account, it is probable 70 
he was present on this occasion; though there is this differ- 
ence between the two witnesses—she believes he spoke in 
earnest, and he does not. In Dunn’s account, there is some addi- 
tional extravagance, as that he had taken the advice of his 
Father Confessor, who had advised him to burn them all. 
Ho one ventured to ask Dunn whether he believed his brother 
was in earnest, and we have not the advantage of his views 
of this matter. 
It is useless to join issue with this lady on the questions, 
whether a six-horse load of literary rubbish, interspersed with 
Shakspeare and Milton and Burke and Clarendon and Gibbon 
and Hume and Bolingbroke, like the gouts of gold in the 
sands of California, is a splendid library; or, whether the tes- 
tator had in his collection all the standard English authors; 
or, whether a man who toiled by day and by night in the drudg- 
ery of a law office, for the purpose of making money, did in 
fact have his chief delight in arranging and reading a miscel- 
laneous library. All that is necessary to be known about this 
library, at present, is, that it was purchased at auction, in lots, 
good and bad together; and that such books as were offensive to 
good morals and common decency, as Hot Corn and Rabelais, 
were picked out and thrown in the fire. But it is doubtful 
whether he announced a purpose to destroy this library, in the 
deep and solemn sense in which that word is used. It is doubt- 
ful whether the threat to burn these books was not one of those 
“exceedingly rash” expressions, of which Judge Storer speaks, 
and which we know, from the proof, he was apt to make in his 
best days, when excited. It is doubtful whether it was not made 
in the heat of excited controversy with his sister Louise, who 
writes books, and his brother Abram S., who writes poetry, 
about the merits of worthless literature and infidel writers. It is 
doubtful whether any thing was said which ought to have been 
believed by any one who knew the testator’s peculiarities, ex- 
cept a lady who preferred being credulous to having her self- 
love wounded by the idea that her sarcastic old brother was 
making ridicule of book-makers. It is doubtful whether all he 
said imported anything more than the threat of a sportsman to 
blow out the brains of a wayward dog, or to cut the throat of 
a stumbling horse. 
If Mr. Piatt had burnt all his books, we might have ad- 71 
judged liim to be insane at the time. If he had burnt none 
of them, we would have regarded his threat to burn them as 
one of those expressions which men make, thousands of times, 
without meaning anything by them. But he did seriously 
intend to burn some of his books, and he carried out that in- 
tention. Out of 1800 volumes he burned two, not to be 
named among Christians. This furnishes us with a sort of 
rule of three by which we can measure and determine the 
real weight of testimony: as 2 volumes are to 1800, so is the 
sober reality to the excited imaginations of witnesses. 
In further proof that the testator labored under religious 
mania, it is asserted that his mind was so poisoned with pre- 
judices against every man and every thing that was not Cath- 
olic that he was not capable of doing justice. 
To this end, the school question, so called, and the part Mr. 
Piatt took in it, are brought into the case. Mr. Piatt, like 
many other good Catholics, and many good Protestants, was 
dissatisfied with the school system of Ohio, as administered 
in Cincinnati; and in the City Council, and on the stump, he 
took a part in the discussions of the day on that subject. 
What his argumrtits were, the testimony does not show. 
That which is made to appear in this case is a collection of 
the harsh things he said on several occasions. 
In order to understand these, we must figure to ourselves 
an honest man, surrounded by busy-bodies springing into 
ephemeral importance in the organization of the American 
party—misunderstood by the ignorant, misrepresented by the 
wicked, hunted down and bayed like a wild beast by big- 
ots, and burned in effigy by the rabble. We must also con- 
sider the character of the man. Mr. Piatt was not one of 
those meek and patient martyrs who hug the stake at which 
they burn. When the hand of God was upon him, he sub- 
mitted patiently, believing it was all for the best; but not so 
when his fellow men did him wrong. Then, he would fight 
for his rights; and, if he fell in the contest, it would be 
“ With his back to the field and his feet to the foe.” 
As he thus stands, fighting for his rights, let us inquire what 
were his natural weapons and modes of war? Naturally, he 
had a strong, unyielding will, that never surrendered. Nat- 72 
urally, lie had an irritable temper, easily provoked to anger, 
and ungovernable when angry. Naturally, he was exceed- 
ingly rash in his expressions, when in a state of excitement. 
Naturally, he had great powers of sarcasm, and was unspar- 
ing in the use of this talent. Was it not, in such circum- 
stances, perfectly natural for him to say harsh things? 
Let us, then, drop out these harsh words, which meant 
nothing then and mean still less now, and inquire, for a mo- 
ment, what was the topic then before the public? In Ohio, 
the common schools are supported by a tax on the property 
of every body. They are State institutions, which take out 
of the hands of every man the education of his own children. 
The parent, as an individual, has nothing to do but pay his 
tax and send his children to school. The State builds the 
school house. The State selects the school books. The State 
employs the teacher. The State selects and purchases the 
circulating school library. 
That the books thus selected are, to a certain extent, secta- 
rian, must be admitted. Among other books which Roman 
Catholics consider sectarian, is King James’s translation of the 
Holy Scriptures; an opinion quite as weM founded as that 
entertained by Protestants in regard to the Houay Bible. An 
honest, unprejudiced man can read the one with as much 
pleasure and profit as the other. They are both good trans- 
lations, but neither is perfect—neither free from errors. King 
James’s translation was made in highly exciting party times, 
when the best of men scarcely knew their own hearts. The 
bloody and brutish reign of Henry the Eighth—the milk-and- 
water reign of Edward the Sixth—the bloody reign of Mary, 
and the magnificent tyranny of Elizabeth, had swept in terri- 
ble succession over the nation, and left the earth smoking 
with the blood of martyrs on both sides: and the Catholic 
Church, robbed by Henry, and trodden under foot by his 
haughty daughter, abhorred the reigning powers. At this 
juncture, James the First of England mounted the throne. 
Naturally a narrow-minded bigot, and, by education, a Scotch 
Presbyterian, he was imbued with the belief that the Roman 
Catholic Church was none other than the Babylonish whore 
of the Apocalypse; and he had done homage to Elizabeth, 
and kissed her hand still red with the blood of his Catholic 73 
mother. He called together fifty-two learned men of his own 
way of thinking, to translate into the English tongue the 
Holy Scriptures. That they did their work as faithfully as 
the frailties of human nature and the high party excitement 
of the times would admit, should not he doubted. But the 
Catholics never were satisfied with it—they never admitted it 
to be reliable; and although they read it (and, as it would 
appear, the testator had several copies of it in his library), 
yet they never were willing to have it forced on the minds 
of their children as an infallible standard. Besides, they 
regard the business of teaching religion to be the business of 
the Church and not of the State; and they claim for them- 
selves the right of superintending the spiritual instruction of 
their own children. To this end,'they claimed (as they had 
done successfully in Hew York) their proportion of the school 
fund, drawn by taxation from their pockets, that they might 
manage it in their own way. Here was the head and front 
of Mr. Piatt’s offending. He advocated the Catholic side of 
this question, and what he advocated he advocated, according 
to the laws of his nature, with zeal, with earnestness, with 
impetuosity, occasionally with rashness. If we had a faithful 
report of all the wise and reasonable things he said on this 
subject, the case would appear very different; but his speeches 
were assiduously garbled, first for the newspapers at the time, 
and then for this case, and the rash and offensive things 
which he said only are reported. But all these speeches on 
the school question were made as early as the spring of 1853, 
before his brother Bunn had gone to Europe, or his kinsman 
Smith to Washington, and before either of them had discov- 
ered the melancholy change—at a time when no witness, 
however unscrupulous, pretends that he labored under insan- 
ity, either total or partial, and when lie was in the enjoyment 
of health as full and vigorous as he ever had in his life. 
In collecting this testimony, reference was had to the po- 
litical aspect of Boone county, and the prevailing prejudices 
in that quarter against the Catholic religion. Surely, it is 
not expected such things will have any weight in the highest 
judicial tribunal of Kentucky. 
To sustain this idea of deep-rooted prejudice against Pro- 
testants, it is asserted that he had no confidence in any man 74 
wlio was not a member of the Catholic Church—and that he 
so declared. Dunn Piatt’s version of what he said to his fa- 
ther, on Broadway, in which some such language is attribu- 
ted to him, is not infallible; and, as to what he said to Dr. 
Murphy, the circumstances under which he said it must be 
taken into account. The Doctor was at Mr. Piatt’s house for 
the purpose of making love to the daughter. Mr. Piatt 
might not have thought him a suitable match for her on va- 
rious accounts; hut the objection which was most tangible, 
and that which would be least offensive to the Doctor’s pride, 
was, that the daughter was a pious Catholic, and the Doctor 
had no religion, and anti-Catholic principles. Had the Doc- 
tor directly asked permission to address his daughter, this 
would most probably have been his objection. As it was, he 
nipped in the bud all the Doctor’s tender aspirations, by in- 
forming him that he had not much confidence iii any young 
man who did not belong to the Church. This was, no doubt, 
the occasion on which the Doctor’s idea that Mr. Piatt lacked 
common sense took its ground; and, by a disagreeable asso- 
ciation of ideas, it has clung to him with the pertinacity of 
an insane delusion ever since. 
But the best way to settle this matter is not by the occa- 
sional remarks of the testator. God forgive us all! I fear it 
is too common for the best of us to make uncharitable re- 
marks about the Churches and Societies to which we do not 
belong. I fear me, that, if our brothers and sisters, and neph- 
ews and nieces, who sit around our firesides and listen to the 
thoughtless, unguarded, peevish or jocose remarks we make 
about our neighbors and their religion, should volunteer, af- 
ter we are dead, to remember and repeat such things, we 
should have scenes in human life which would disgust the 
hyena with his trade. If we wish to know the truth, we 
ought to inquire, rather, what a man lias done than what he 
has said. A man’s acts are a truer index to his real thoughts 
than the words of passion and excitement he may happen to 
utter. It is especially so with a man like the testator, who is 
proved to have been exceedingly rash and unguarded in his 
words, and exceedingly cautious and prudent in his actions. 
Let us then inquire, What acts are in evidence on this point? 
whom did he dismiss from his employment, with whom did 75 
he refuse to trade, from whom did he withdraw his patron- 
age, in whom did he refuse to confide, because they were 
Protestants. On what worthless man did he lavish his boun- 
ty, in what dishonest man did he confide, what faithless 
wretch did he employ, because he was a Catholic? 
He all but adored his venerable father, who had abjured 
the Catholic faith. Whether he had confidence in his Prot- 
estant brothers as business men, or not, the proof shows his 
uniform kindness toward them. Residing in Kentucky and 
doing business in Cincinnati, he ordinarily ate his meals at 
the table of an Old School Presbyterian; and when he was 
worn, and weary, and sick, and could not sleep, he came to 
his Protestant sister-in-law, to have her make his pillow of 
hops, and do for him a hundred other kind offices which none 
but a woman can do. When he employed a family physi- 
cian in the city, he chose Hr. Thomas Wood, a born Quaker 
and a Protestant. He employed Hr. James Taylor, a Pres- 
byterian, as his surgeon dentist for seventeen years, and con- 
tinued to patronize him to the last. He had his dry goods 
account, in Cincinnati, at J. Shilito & Co.’s, a house in which 
there is not one Catholic interested. In Lawrenceburg, he 
dealt with Mr. Parry—not only a Protestant, but a Know- 
nothing. He gave his confidence and support to Judge Par- 
ker, an Episcopalian, and a candidate for a judgeship on the 
American ticket. Ho man in Cincinnati enjoyed more of his 
confidence and respect than Mr. Van Matre, another Protest- 
ant. In his supposed weakness and fanaticism, when his 
health decayed, we find no change in this respect. Protest- 
ants were as much as ever the objects of his confidence. 
When he was wounded with the saw, he sent for Hr. Hard- 
ing, of Lawrenceburg, a Protestant, to be his surgeon, and 
called in consultation his old Protestant physician, Hr. Wood. 
When he came to make his will, the onty Catholic who had 
anything to do in the matter was present by accident. His 
Protestant father went to Cincinnati for an attorney to draft 
the will. The attorney selected for this purpose was the same 
Protestant attorney whom he had employed and consulted, for 
several years, in his own cases and the cases of his father and 
family. The remaining subscribing witness, Benj. M. Piatt, jr., 
now a Methodist, and not a Catholic then, was specially re- 76 
quested to be present to witness the will. When he made liis 
last journey to Cincinnati, his Protestant cousin, Benj. M. Piatt, 
jr., by request, went with him, as bis friend, to take care of him. 
Ilis son, J ohn II. Piatt, who is supposed to have been the pecu- 
liar object of distrust and hatred as a Protestant, was still retain- 
ed and relied on as his confidential agent to the last—and, at 
the last, still confiding in him, he asks him to be a father to bis 
little brothers and sisters after he should be with them no more. 
Kext to the company a man keeps and the men in whom 
he confides, we may look to his books to see what bis senti- 
ments are. Mr. Piatt had a large collection of books, which 
were his own companions in life, and are now the companions 
of his widow and children. Such as he considered unfit for that 
purpose, be committed to the flames in his lifetime. Among 
those which survive are several copies of King James’s Bible, 
the Commentaries of Dr. Adam Clarke, the Sermons of llev. 
Robert Hall, and the writings of Dr. Channing. Tims we 
see Protestants at large—Methodists, Baptists and Unita- 
rians—represented in bis library. When this whole matter 
is examined, we find the testator, though himself a member 
of the Roman Catholic Church, as liberal toward those who 
difl'ered from him as religious men in general; and such is 
the concurrent opinion of numerous witnesses who knew him 
well. Dr. Harding, whose characteristic as a witness, next 
to truth, is that of caution, says: “ Mr. Piatt was a Catholic 
“in his faith. He frequently reverted to religious subjects, 
“but I think not more frequently'than persons .commonly do 
“who consider themselves dangerously ill. I have several 
“times had conversations with Mr. Piatt with regard to his 
“ religious faith, and have heard him express himself warmly 
“and confidently in regard to the faith and doctrines of his 
“Church; but I am not aware that he exhibited more preju- 
dice or firmness with regard to the tenets of his Church than 
“is common to men of strong and impulsive minds.” And 
Judge Storer, speaking of the same subject, says: “I have 
“heard him, in the general, express his opinions on his pecu- 
liar faith; but never, that I recollect, was he obtrusive or 
“disposed to proselyte. lie was very warm in the mode of 
“his expression—but never, to my knowledge, offensive to 
“ others.” And Mr. Yan Matre, speaking of the same sub- 77 
j ect, says: “ I never discovered an}’ want of cordiality, courtesy 
“or confidence, on Mr. Piatt’s part, on account of difference of 
“religious opinions. I considered him a man as liberal and 
“generous on those subjects as men usually are.” 
Michael Victor Daly, his student and partner and friend— 
with whom he conversed on every subject, even the most 
delicate—in whom he confided, and to whom, as a member 
of the same religious communion, he might speak freely, and 
to whom he would have spoken freely, if his mind had been 
poisoned by religious bigotry—bears this testimony: “ I never, 
“in the w’hole of our connection, or since, heard him utter an 
“unkind or prejudiced word against any one, on account of 
“their religion. On the contrary, I knew him to have strong 
“ partiality for some persons of a different faith. There never 
“was any feeling of this kind shown by him that I could see.” 
Again: “I never heard him express any sentiment against, 
“ or for, a person, because of the form of his religion.” 
Mrs. Stille' gives us what may be taken as a fair sample of 
those remarks to and about Protestants, out of which other 
witnesses have made so much: “ I never heard him converse 
“on the subject of religion. He once told me, in a jocular 
“ way, that, if I was a Catholic, I would be all that I should 
“be—or something to that effect. I expressed my surprise, in 
“the same jocular manner, that he should make that remark 
“to an Old School Presbyterian; and he said it was rather 
“presumptuous, or something to that effect, and there the 
“ matter stopped.” 
Here, then, is the truth : Mr. Piatt, in regard to religion, 
making the proper allowance for the natural warmth of his 
temper, was just like other religious men. 
This leads to some remarks on what the Broadway junto 
would seem to think was a course of unreasonable persecu- 
tion toward his son, John II., on account of his religion. 
A brief examination of the testimony will show that, 
unless it has a parallel in some other part of this case, so 
great a superstructure never was built on so narrow a found- 
ation. Ho doubt, Mr. Piatt desired his son to become a 
Catholic; and this inference is not to be drawn so much from 
the testimony as from the universal law of human action. 
Every religious man desires his children to worship at the 78 
same church with himself. The man so liberal as to desire, 
of a Sabbath morning, to see one of his children set off to 
the Catholic church, another to the Episcopalian church, 
another to the Methodist church, another to the Baptist 
church, another to the Presbyterian church, another to the 
Unitarian church, and another to the Universalist church, is 
not to be found every day. There is a decency and propriety 
in a whole family walking hand in hand to the same house 
of worship and worshiping at the same altar. The mere 
economist prefers it, because it costs less money to support 
but one Church; the mere votary of propriety prefers it, 
because the sons protect the daughters, and the grown-up 
children lead the little ones by the hand; the pious man pre- 
fers it, because all the ties of kindred and friendship are 
made stronger by the mutual bond of a common religion. 
Mr. Tiatt desired his oldest son to be the companion and 
protector of his little brothers and sisters on their way to 
church, as, on his death-bed, he desired him to be a father to 
them when they should be fatherless. He had used some 
effort, no one knows what, to bring him over. He had 
requested a priest to converse with him on the subject; and, 
on his death-bed, he asked him to investigate the claims of 
the Church. This is all. 
But did he persecute his son because he would not go with 
him to church? Mrs. Louise Piatt says: “Mr. Jacob W. Pi- 
“att was very unkind, unjust, and in fact insulting toward 
“John on account of his religion. I think he lost no oppor- 
“ tunity to say disagreeable things to him. Upon his return 
“from church, his father would say: ‘Well! what swaddler 
“have you been listening to to-day?’ On one occasion, in a 
“conversation with Mr. Piatt, he said he could do nothing 
“ with John. He was so obstinate, that, instead of going with 
“him to church, he would slip off and go hear some swad- 
“ dler preach.” Corresponding accounts, greatly intensified, 
are given by Dunn Piatt. But how many facts are there in 
evidence to support these sweeping assertions? When all 
comes to all, these witnesses are able to state a single occasion, 
one Sunday, at Dunn Piatt’s dinner table, when he asked the son, 
on his return, (as they allege) from church, What swaddler he 
had been listening to, to-day? If we but knew what church 79 
John had been at, or whether he had been at any church, we 
could form some idea as to the severity of this remark. The 
term “ swaddler ” gives us no clue to it. It is a word not to 
be found in any dictionary of the English language, and the 
witnesses have not told us in what sense the word was used 
by Mr. Piatt. It was a term first applied in Dublin to Mr. 
Cennick, one of Mr. Wesley’s preachers, on the occasion of 
his preaching a Christmas sermon from these words: “Ye 
“shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a 
“ manger.’’ It was bandied afterward, for some years, against 
Methodist preachers, by Papists, Episcopalians and Presbyte- 
rians, and came to mean a traveling preacher, and, in time, a 
strolling preacher. If this is the sense in which Mr. Piatt 
used the word, it could not have had reference to the minis- 
ters of any Presbyterian church in Cincinnati; nor can we, 
from anything apparent in the proof, determine whether John 
had been listening to the serious discourse of a Protestant 
minister of the Gospel, or to the lectures of Abby Kelly on 
Slavery, or of Mrs. Nicholson on Free Love, or the Sabbath- 
day stump speech of some vagabond on the corruptions of 
Bomanism. 
Coates Kinney, for a short time an occupant of Mr. Piatt’s 
office, gives us a long, vague account of his impressions and 
opinions as to the state of feeling between Mr. Piatt and his 
son, and his opinion that it was on account of differences of 
religious faith. This coldness and ill-feeling, so far as it wTent, 
is accounted for elsewhere, and grew out of causes which 
would have provoked any one, much more a man in bad 
health and naturally irritable. Put what facts does Mr. Kin- 
ney state? Only one: The New York Observer, “a Protest- 
“ant newspaper,” came to the office directed to John, and the 
father said it not fit for a young man to read, put it in 
his pocket and took it away. What is a Protestant newspa- 
per? The word “protestant” once had a meaning. It meant 
such Christians as protested against the supreme authority of 
the Pope. But now-a-days any blaspheming infidel may as- 
sume the title of Protestant, and it would seem newspapers 
may be Protestants too. But what sort of paper was this 
New York Observer? What were the contents of this par- 
ticular number ? Who can say whether it was fit for a young 80 
man to read? Nobody looked into it, except Mr. Piatt; and 
who, without looking into it, can say whether he acted rightly 
or wrongly in taking it away ? 
Next in importance to Coates Kinney’s testimony is that of 
young Master Runkle, a nephew of the testator. The pur- 
pose of Master Runkle’s testimony seems to be three-fold: 
to show, 1st, that John was hardly treated in his father’s house 
and office; 2d, that Mr. Piatt was a great bigot in religion; 
3d, that he was not competent to make a will. On all three 
of these points, Master Iiunkle gives usliis opinion with great 
confidence. But let us have the facts. First, as to the hard 
usage; Mrs. Piatt having in her dormitory only four rooms for 
herself and her husband, seven children, and two servants, 
and all her country cousins, except the Runkles, sent John 
to sleep in a long, low room over the office, with no other 
furniture than a carpet, a bed, a bureau, a wash-stand, basin 
and pitcher, a few chairs, and a looking-glass over the bureau. 
The indignity offered the young man by his father in the 
office was still more degrading: once on a time, he was re- 
required to do the office of an amanuensis for his sick father, 
to the extent of writing one letter, and once or oftener to 
look after some law business before a justice of the peace; 
and this is what Master Runkle calls drudgery, when per- 
formed by an apprentice in a law office. It might be called 
drudgery in some office in the interior of Ohio, wherein 
Master Runkle studies. 
We thus get a peep into the high notions of this young 
gentleman; and, considering the license of relationship,-the 
peculiar caste of the testator’s mind, his keen sense of the 
ridiculous, and his extraordinary powers of sarcasm, it is im- 
possible such an object should escape him. He ridiculed his 
college, ridiculed his religion, ridiculed his idea of going to 
the West; punctured all his tumors as fast as they rose, on 
every subject. But it is remarkable that this witness never 
heard him say a word to John about religion—nor does he 
give us one instance evincing a lack of confidence in any one 
on account of religion. Ilis conclusion on this subject is : 
“ He did not seem to think there was any good in the Protest- 
“ ant religion. I think he blamed every body who professed 
“ it. That is my opinion only.” 81 
Let ns turn to liis opinion of tlie testator’s capacity to make 
a will. He saw him but once within the last year of his life, 
and that was the next day after he returned home from Cin- 
cinnati, five or six days after the will was made. He had but 
one conversation with him at this time, all of which he has 
detailed with great clearness. This conversation is remarka- 
ble for its good sense, and, as far as it relates to business, 
shows his mind to have been clear at that time; and (strange 
to say) it had not one word about religion in it. And, at last, 
the witness comes to this conclusion: “I did not judge of the 
“ state of his mind by what I heard him say during his last 
“sickness, but by what I judged must necessarily be the effect 
“of such terrible suffering.” So that, unless the testator was 
suffering when he dictated and executed his will, this young 
man’s idea of incapacity amounts to nothing. 
The idea of general derangement and incapacity being out 
of the question, it is pretended that an estrangement took 
place between the father and the son, in which the father 
alone was to blame; and that this estrangement was followed 
up by relentless persecution on the father’s part, and resulted 
in this will. 
This is another mole-hill magnified into a mountain. The 
plain truth of the matter is this: Jacob W. Piatt was an irri- 
table old man who wanted the son to follow his advice : John 
II. Piatt was a proud young man, who wanted to follow his 
own conceits. The father had been brought up in the back- 
woods to notions of economy, and was not ashamed to carry 
a parcel of goods under his arm, provided they were paid for. 
The son had been brought up in Hew England, amongst de- 
cayed aristocrats who expected servants to carry such things 
for them. The father’s vote was challenged by a know-noth- 
ing, at the poll where he had voted for more than thirty years, 
on information furnished by the son: and he felt, on the oc- 
casion, as any other father would have felt. John had his 
uncle Foster in the United States’ Senate, his uncle Dunn a 
secretary of legation at St. Cloud, and his cousin T. K. Smith 
in a clerkship at Washington, and he took the office-hunting 
itch and determined to go to the capitol to get some public 
employment. The father wished him to stay at home and 82 
devote himself to business. There was nothing to make a 
great noise about on either side. 
Such things are common to the lot of man. He is a happy 
father who has no worse a son. He is a happy son who has 
no worse a father. 
But let us determine, by the acts of the parties, whether 
they were rent asunder by terrible and unnatural jars? Their 
actions will tell the tale more truly than words. At the time 
referred to, John was a full-grown, well-educated young mam 
able to battle with the world, able to support himself, and in 
no wise dependent on his father. Jacob wTas a man in easy 
circumstances, able to employ and pay clerks to do the copy- 
ing of his office and agents to collect his rents, and was in no 
wise dependent on his son. Under the circumstances, it would 
have been neither a sin nor a shame on the part of either, if 
they had parted, like Paul and Barnabas. The father could 
have said, “My son, let there be no strife between us. You 
are your own master. I have done what I could to fit you 
for life and usefulness. If my mode of life is too rude, or my 
discipline too severe for you, go and seek your fortune else- 
where.” The son could have said, “ Father, I am grateful for 
all you have done for me: I am sorry I am not able to please 
you better. We can not live together in peace, and so let us 
part in peace.” 
But they did not part. Whether they were drawn together 
by the bonds of kindness, or gravitated together by the weight 
of interest, does not matter. They did not part. They stuck 
together to the last. The father trusted and confided in the 
son as his confidential agent while he lived, and fondly hoped 
that he would perform the same faithful offices for his widow 
and orphans, when he was gone. The son performed these 
offices faithfully, so far as we know, while the father lived, 
and stood like a dutiful son by his bed-side when he died. 
And, in the last moment, we find the father folding this son 
in his arms—not reproaching him for hearing swaddlers 
preach—not by fire and fagot compelling him to embrace the 
Catholic faith—not denouncing him as an heretic with bell, 
book and candle—not declaring that he had no confidence in 
him because he was not a Catholic—but affectionately ex- 83 
plaining to him the ground on which he acted in making his 
will; and, next after the God he worshiped, committing to 
his care and protection all that was near and dear to him in 
life and in death—his widow and his orphans. 
That prejudice against the son on account of his religious 
faith did not influence the testator in making his will, is fur- 
ther evident from the fact that he placed him on a footing of 
equality with his sister, Mrs. Jenkins, who is a member of the 
Homan Catholic Church. 
VII. 
A Jury have no right to substitute tlieir own notions of 
fairness, liberality or equity, for those of the testator. The 
question is not: Is this a wise will? is it a just will? is it a 
fair will? is it a liberal will? but, Is it the will of the testa- 
tor? 
Cook vs. Gould, 1 Haggard, 577; Sloan vs. Maxwell, 2 
Green's Ch’y R., 563; Greenwood vs. Greenwood, 3 Curtis, Ap- 
pendix 1; Duffield vs. Robeson, 2 Harrington, 381; Davis vs. 
Calvert, 5 Gill § John., 300; Burr vs. Duval, 8 Mod., 59; 
Weir’s Will, 9 Dana, 441; Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 1 Bailey, 
92; Couch vs. Couch, 7 Alabama, 519; Baker vs. Lewis, 4 
Rawle, 356; Ross vs. Christman, 1 Iredell (Law) 209; Goble vs. 
Grant, 2 Green’s Ch’y R., 629; Bettlestone vs. Clark, 2 Lee, Ec. 
R., 229; Martin vs. Walton, 1 Lee, Ec. R., 130; Bird vs. Bird, 
2 Haggard, 142; Waters vs. Ilowlet, 3 Haggard, 790; King vs. 
Farley, 1 Haggard, 502. 
Here arises the great objection to the verdict of the Jury. 
The jurors thought they were wiser than the testator—juster 
than the testator—fairer than the testator—more liberal than 
the testator; and, therefore, they have undertaken to make a 
will for him. Against this usurpation of power over the pri- 
vate rights and private property of a citizen, we have taken 
this appeal. 
The will-making power stands not in the notion of equal 
distribution. The owner of an estate disposes of it, not ac- 
cording to any fixed rule of arithmetic, but according to his 
best judgment of what is best, upon the whole, for his chil- 
dren. They do not stand to him in the relation of creditors, 
but as the objects of his bounty. He gives more to this one, 84 
and less to that, because one may be more needy, more help- 
less, more deserving, than another. The law considers every 
man of sound mind the proper judge as to how his bounty 
should be dispensed, and recognizes every sane man’s right to 
do wliat he pleases with his own. 
In case a man makes no will, the statutes, to put an end to 
strife, fix certain uniform rules of distribution. All other 
things being equal, these rules are just and satisfactory. But 
how many times would great injustice be done by following 
the uniform rule of the statutes. A man has reared, educat- 
ed and set up, three sons and three daughters, at an outlay 
of two thousand dollars each. They are all settled in the 
world and doing well—each one of them in as eligible a po- 
sition as the father. By a second marriage he has six young 
children, yet to rear, yet to educate, yet to set up, with all 
the chances of disaster and mishap before them. The re- 
maining estate of the father is but twelve thousand dollars. 
If he makes a will and gives all he has to his six minor chil- 
dren, he will have done exact equality. If the statute makes 
the distribution, the older children, who are already provided 
for, come in for an equal share. The result is, that the six 
older children get three thousand dollars each, while the six 
younger ones get but one thousand. 
Again : a man whose estate is small, may have lame, blind, 
or idiotic children, and, having liberally educated his helpful 
children, may feel it to be his duty to settle, by will, the bulk 
of his little estate on the helpless ones. The common con- 
science of mankind approves such a will; but the statutes 
never make such a will—they go upon the uniform idea of 
equality, leaving that of providence out of the question. 
Again: a man’s estate may have come wholly by a first 
marriage. He may marry a second wife, without either prop- 
erty or economy, who only wastes the estate acquired by the 
first marriage. It is not fairness that the children of the 
second marriage should be placed on a footing of equality 
with the children of the first; yet, by the statutes, they take 
sliare and share alike. So, too, if a poor widower acquires a 
large estate by a-second marriage, it is not fairness that the 
children of the former marriage should share the estate equally 85 
witli those of the latter: but the statute makes no distinction 
between them. 
Cases might be multiplied without number, in which the 
statutory distribution is neither equitable nor just, much less 
provident and wise. But these considerations have nothing 
to do with the question at bar, unless, indeed, the provisions 
of the will be such as to evince a want of testamentary ca- 
pacity. The provisions of the will have been already discussed 
under another head; it may not be amiss now to look for a 
moment into the circumstances, to inquire whether, in point 
of fact, it is so unjust as gentlemen suppose. Jacob W. Piatt 
commenced life poor, and ended it comparatively rich. His 
fortune was all of his own making. His venerable father, in 
speaking of the will, says: “He did not make such a will as 
“I would have made; but I thought it was none of my busi- 
“ ness. He made what he had in the world, and I thought 
“he had a right to dispose of it as he pleased.” Ilis fortune 
was the result of hard labor and close economy, running 
through a period of thirty years. Like other poor young law- 
yers, the earnings of the first ten years must have been small. 
The decree of the Supreme Court giving the second wife, for 
her own support and that of her son, three hundred dollars, 
a year, is a pretty fair indication of what his income was at 
that time. The bulk of his estate must have been acquired 
in the last twenty years of his active life. 
He was three times married. The first marriage was a 
happy one. The lady would have been an heiress if she had 
lived; but she died before her ancestor, and the estate descend- 
ed directly on her two daughters, Mrs. Shoemaker and Mrs. 
Jenkins. Ilis second marriage was unhappy. Whose fault 
this was, it is better not to inquire. The fact that he lived 
happily for more than twenty years with a third wife, proves 
that he was not wholly in fault. Suffice it to say, she brought 
him nothing when she came—she deserted him before he 
knew himself to be the father of her child—and, by a decree 
of Court, she was awarded the custody of the child, and three 
hundred dollars a year. She lived to tax his earnings six 
thousand dollars, besides what he contributed to the collegiate 
education of the son. Whether the third wife brought him 
property, we do not know; but she brought him what was 86 
far better. She brought him peace, prosperity and domestic 
happiness: and, by his industry and her economy, for more 
than twenty years, the estate in controversy was built up. Of 
the nine children this wife had borne him, seven were living 
when he made his will, ranging from fifteen years to six 
months old. lie had already done a liberal part by his older 
children. They were liberally educated and set up in the 
world; and they were in circumstances to take care of them- 
selves. The seven younger children were yet to be brought 
up, educated and provided for, and it would require a great 
part of his estate to do this; and if, in his estimation, the 
children of the wife who helped him to build up the estate 
had higher claims than the others, it neither proves him to 
have been unjust nor insane. If he was wrong, to any extent, 
in his estimate of the advantages his older children enjoyed, 
or the disadvantages the younger ones labored under, it was 
not the result either of total or partial insanity. Ho insane 
delusion is proved, and none to be inferred, from any thing 
he ever said or did. 
VIII. 
Where the proof shows that the provisions of a will accord 
a long cherished and previously declared purpose of the 
testator, it rebuts the idea that such will was the result of im- 
proper restraint or undue influence exercised over him at the 
time it was made: 
Jarman on Wills, 63; Fullock vs. Allison, 3 Haggard, 527; 
Sewart’s Ex. vs. Lispenard, 26 Wendell, 255; James et al. vs. 
Langdon, 7 B. Monroe, 196; Heed’s Will, 2 B. Monroe, 75, 80. 
Here is a proposition of law fully sustained by authority, 
and in itself so obviously true as to admit of but little argu- 
ment ; because, when 9; testator has once made up his mind 
as to the disposition he intends to make of his property, and 
afterward carries out in making his will the purpose so formed, 
it can not be said, with reason, that such disposition was the 
result of improper restraint, undue influence, false informa- 
tion, unreasonable prejudice, mental weakness, or any other 
new cause existing at the time the will was made. 
Our inquiry, then, in this place, is: Whether Jacob W. 
Piatt, for 9,ny considerable time before his will was made, had 
formed a plan in his mind for the disposition of his property. Dr. Mudd’s statement, which refers to John only, is this: 
“I do not recollect the year; but, upon the first visit of John 
“H. Piatt to Cincinnati, and before he graduated at Yale Col- 
lege, during a vacation of the college, his father, Mr. Piatt, 
“ introduced him to myself and family as his son. It was 
“ about dinner time. After dinner, Mr. Piatt, his son and 
“ myself, went round to the office. Mr. John H. Piatt took a 
“ walk through the city. His father then remarked to me, that 
“his son was a tine looking youug man (he had not seen him 
“ before), and that he felt proud of him. He farther remarked, 
“that he intended to give him a first-rate education—educate 
“him as a lawyer and set him up in business. Without any 
“ remark being made on my part, Mr. Piatt then observed, I 
“DO NOT THINK THAT I SHALL LEAVE HIM ANY OF MY PROPERTY, 01’ 
“words to that effect; I think the very words.” And this is 
precisely what the testator actually did. He gave him a “first- 
“rate education”—graduated him at Yale College. He “edu- 
cated him as a lawyer”—graduated him at the Cincinnati 
Law School. He “set him up in business”—gave him his 
practice and his law library, and, besides this, “ did not leave 
him any of his property.” 
Let it be borne in mind, that this conversation with Dr. 
Mudd took place before he had done any thing for his son, 
except what had been done by way of supporting him and 
his mother—the first time the son ever saw Cincinnati, and 
the first time ever the father saw the son’s face. All the money 
he ever advanced him was after this; all the fourteen affection- 
ate letters, which are in evidence, were written after this; all 
the imaginary jars about religion, about politics, about pride, 
about disobedience, took place after this: so that, what he 
did on the 19th day of May, 1859, was done after the reflec- 
tion of four years. 
But did he cherish this purpose in the mean while ? He 
spoke to his attorney, about a year before the will now in 
contest was made, to draft a will for him; and, when told 
that the statutes of Ohio made as good a disposition of a 
man’s estate as he could make himself, he said that “he agreed 
“with the attorney, when there was nothing peculiar in the 
“circumstances of the case; and he said that he had been 
“three times married, and had three families of children; that 
87 88 
“his two older children, by the first two wives, were educated 
“and set up in the world; that they had cost him a great 
“deal of money (he did not say how much), and were pro- 
vided for; that, by his third wife, he had a large family of 
“helpless children, who were yet to bring up and educate; 
“ and that he felt it to be his duty to dispose of what he had 
“for that purpose. He said education was growing every 
“year more and more expensive, and there was no telling 
“ how much it would cost to bring up and educate his younger 
“ children.” 
This occurred about the middle of May, 1856, when as yet 
the sanity of the testator had not been doubted; and before 
the chief causes of offense described by Mr. and Mrs. Dunn 
Piatt—such as going to hear swaddlers preach, refusing to 
carry packages, causing the father’s vote to be challenged, 
and so on—had arisen: so that, the resolution to devote 
the bulk of his estate to the maintenance and education of 
his younger children could not have been the offspring of 
offenses which had not yet been born. 
Let us see whether the attorney is corroborated in his state- 
ment by any other witness. The Rev. Edward Purcell makes 
this statement: “I heard him speak of making his will, and 
“the disposition which he thought he would make of his prop- 
erty. The children who were grown up, he thought were 
“already sufficiently provided for; and he considered it his 
“ duty to provide especially for the children of his last wife, 
“because they were young and had to be educated. That 
“was all I remember of what he said. This was within, or 
“ about, a year before his death.” Mark the date—about a year 
before his death. 
Is there any other evidence of the predetermination of Mr. 
Piatt, as to the disposition of his property? It must have 
been a topic of conversation in the Piatt family, or by the 
public at large—for Mrs. Louise Piatt, in speaking of what 
occurred before he was wounded, and wThen he was going 
about attending to out-of-door business, says: “I had heard 
“rumors that he was going to make his will and cut John 
“off; and, upon one occasion, just as he was leaving our house, 
“ I detained him and said, ‘I wish, before you make your will, 
“you would consult Archbishop Purcell.’” The matter was, 89 
then, no secret. His determination was already known; and 
this lady and her family were on the alert, to make, to mend, 
or to break the will, as it might or might not suit their notions. 
We thus have seen what Mr. Piatt intended to do for his 
son. We have traced that intention down from the day he first 
came to the West, in 1853, to the day the will was executed, 
and, after it was executed, to the day of his death. For reasons 
which were satisfactory to his own mind when in perfect health 
and before the slightest jar had occurred between them—for 
reasons which were still satisfactory to his own mind after 
his health began to decline—for reasons which were satisfac- 
tory to his own mind when he came to make his will—for 
reasons which continued to be satisfactory to his own mind 
when he refused to change his will—he did what he did for 
this young man: never either changing his purpose or assign- 
ing a different reason for it. 
For the purpose of proving a different intention as to John, 
some testimony is offered on the other side. The statement 
of Dunn Piatt of an occurrence which took place in 1850, 
is supposed to have force in it. He says: “I do n’t know 
“ that brother ever called on me to write his will while I lived 
“ on Fourth Street. Before I went abroad, I was waked up 
“ by a domestic to come to see my 'brother; he was very ill. 
“I went to see him; he recovered in a few days. He spoke 
“ to me wfith feeling about John. Said that, as he was his 
“ child, he felt it to be his duty to recognize him as such, and 
“ treat him as his other children. This was said in connection 
“with the subject of making the will. He said, in reference 
“to John, that he was unwilling to die and leave things as they 
“were ” Again, on cross examination, he says: “About 1850, 
“ brother sent for me to make his will.” The omission of 
the questions, both in the examination in chief and in the 
cross examination, makes the answers slightly obscure; but 
the same occurrence is referred to in both. The witness states 
the facts without date in his answer in chief, and gives the 
date on cross examination. 
Let it be borne in mind, that this occurred in 1850, three 
years before the negotiations were opened between Mr. Piatt 
and his son. The son did not come to the West till after Dunn 
and his wife had gone to Europe. His aunt, Mrs. Foster, 90 
says: “In the fall of 1853, by the advice of one through 
“ whom she had received her alimony of $300 a year from the 
“ estate, of J. W. Piatt, decreed her by the Court in Ohio, my 
“ sister consented that her son should accept the urgent invi- 
“tation of his father to visit him in Cincinnati, intimating 
“that John’s interests would be advanced by his so doing.” 
Before this time, Mr. Piatt had never seen his son’s face. 
He only knew, from the information of others, that after his 
wife left him she had borne a son, whose custody was given 
to the mother by decree of Court. It would seem, from the 
testimony of Mr. McCullough, that a daguerreotype, or some 
other style of picture of the son, had been sent to the father; 
by whom, and for what end, does not fully appear. lie had 
at one time doubted, or denied, the legitimacy of this son, 
and may have been using means to satisfy his own mind on 
this point. Be this as it may, the passions excited by real or 
imaginary wrongs had subsided. His better nature told him 
this child was his son; and he wished, in justice to the son, 
in justice to the mother, and in justice to himself, not only to 
place the seal of legitimacy upon him, but to aid him in ac- 
quiring a liberal education. This much is implied in what he 
said to his brother Bunn, and his uncle Abram—and nothing 
more is implied. He did not mention the subject of property 
to either of these gentlemen. 
But let us meet Bunn’s idea fairly, and see into what ab- 
surdity it runs. His brother was attacked with cholera in 
the night, and sent for him to write his will. To what end? 
Why, to put John on a footing of equality with his other 
children. “ He was unwilling to die and leave things as they 
“ were.” Jacob W. Piatt was no match for his brother Bunn 
in works of imagination; but he was an older, and, in 1850, 
a better lawyer. At all events, he knew enough about law 
to know that the surest and best way to put John on a footing 
of equality with the other children, was to make no will. In 
the absence of a will, the law would put him on a footing of 
equality with the other children. The only effect a will could 
have, in regard to him, would be to put him on a different 
footing. “As things were,” John stood on the same footing 
with the other children. If he was “unwilling to die and 
“leave things as they were,” then he was unwilling to die 91 
and leave John on a footing of equality with his other chil- 
dren. If he desired to make a will, that he might not “ die 
“ and leave things as they were,” then the purpose of the con- 
templated will must have been to make some distinction 
between John and his other children. 
There is another piece of evidence in the case, negative in 
its character, but sufficient to rebut the idea that he meant to 
do more for John than to give him a liberal education and fit 
him for business; or that, at any time, he held out the pros- 
pect of an estate as an inducement to John to come to the 
"West. John put in evidence fourteen letters written to him 
by his father, after his first visit to the West and during his 
last two College years. These letters are written without re- 
straint. They are the full and free out-pourings of a father’s 
thoughts and feelings. They are full of anxiety for the son’s 
success and prosperity in life—full of advice and encourage- 
ment as to his future career—full of valuable suggestions as 
to his application to study—full of solicitude about his health 
and habits : but not one word is said, directly or indirectly, 
about property. 
The truth is, that his purpose in regard to this young man 
never changed, from the time he first recognized him as a 
child and took him under his protection, to the last hour when 
he refused to change the will. 
Nor did his purpose vary in regard to his eldest daughter. 
He considered her, as he did the son, already as well provided 
for as he should be able to provide for his younger children. 
Ilis purpose in regard to her is traced back one year before 
the will was made; and it was a fixed purpose, upon reasons 
satisfactory to his own mind—including, probably, the con- 
sideration that the bulk of his estate was won by the mutual 
exertions of himself and the third wife. But this belongs to 
another branch of the case. 
IX. 
Ardent devotion to the Church, and to the ministers of the 
Church, with which a testator stands connected—though it 
may exceed the bounds of reason and amount to fanaticism— 
is not sufficient to invalidate his will, unless his infatuation 
had disordered his general understanding so as to disqualify 
him for making a rational disposition of his property. 92 
Weir’s Will, 9 Dana, 439; Norton vs. 2 Eden., 286; 
Haquenin vs. Basely, 14 Vesey, 273. 
In the latter years of the testator’s life, he was a member 
of the Roman Catholic Church, believed in its doctrines, con- 
formed to its usages, and reverenced its ministers, as all honest 
Roman Catholics do: and this is all. lie did not believe her 
doctrines more firmly, conform to her usages more rigidly, or 
reverence her ministers more sincerely, than is usual among 
professing Christians of other denominations. If he expressed 
himself more ardently, it is explained by reference to the pe- 
culiarities of the man. “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, 
do it with thy might,” was a law of his nature, and he could 
not avoid it. lie was not less ardent in politics, or in anything 
else to which he turned his mind. 
We have an expression of opinion from Mr. Rairden, Dr. 
Murphy, and some others, that the ministers of his Church, 
especially his spiritual adviser, could have persuaded him to 
do almost anything. But there is not one fact in evidence to 
support this opinion. Ho instance is given wherein a priest 
was known to have influenced his mind in the slightest de- 
gree, in regard to his secular affairs; and we have in evidence 
several instances where they interposed their advice without 
success. The only thing which approaches a fact, is that stated 
by Dunn Piatt, that his brother informed him that he had 
been advised by Father Driscol, on consultation, to burn his 
library. If this instance has any truth in it, it proves con- 
clusively the converse of the idea: he did not follow the 
advice. 
One thing is worthy of remark in this connection. What- 
ever Mr. Piatt’s zeal for the Church may have been, he did 
not make her one of his legatees. He once had it in contem- 
plation to make a contribution of a house and lot to a benev- 
olent institution of the Church, but at last he did not do it: 
so that the Church, by the terms of the will, takes nothing, 
directly or indirectly—not one cent. 
That his general understanding-was disordered by too much 
religious zeal, or from any other cause, in the face of all the 
proof, is too preposterous to be seriously considered. 93 
X 
Where a will is sought to be set aside on the ground that 
the testator was under restraint when he executed it, the evi- 
dence should show that the restraint under which he acted 
amounted to moral or physical coercion, or was such as to 
destroy his free agency; and no importunity or influence, 
which does not amount to fraud or force, or to which the tes- 
tator does not yield for the sake of peace, is sufficient to set 
aside a will, if the testator was of sound mind when he made 
it. And the exercise of restraint, fraud, importunity, or un- 
due influence, is not to be presumed from the opportunity or 
the interest any one may have had to exercise them, hut must 
be proved by competent testimony: 
O'Neal vs. Farr, 1 Richardson’s R., 8; Duffield vs. Robeson, 
2 Harrington, 375; Miller vs. Miller, 3 Sergent § Rawle, 267; 
Potts et al. vs. House, 6 Georgia R., 359; Shelford on Lunacy, 
209; 1 Jarman on Wills, 36 to 39; Reed's Will, 2 B. Monroe, 
75; M’Daniel's Will, 2 J. J. Marshall, 342; Williams vs. Goud 
$ Bennett, 1 Haggard, 252; Brown vs. Molliston, 3 Wheaton, 
129; Means vs. Means, 5 Strob.,L. R., 192; Floyd vs. Floyd, 3 
Strob., L. R., 44; Woodward vs. Jones, Strob., L. R., 552; 
Turnbull vs. Gibbons, 2 Zabrisca, 136-158; Weir vs. Fitzgerald, 
2 Bradford, 42; Davis vs. Calvert, 5 Gill cf John., 303; Small 
vs. Small, 4 Greenlief, 222; Harrison’s Will, 1 B. Monroe, 351; 
Swinburn, pt. 7, sec. 4, pi. 1; Bird vs. Bird, 2 Haggard, 142 ; 
Constable vs. Tufnel, 4 Haggard, 485; 1 Williams on Executors 
(2 Am. ed.), 37, 39, 40. 
That attempts were made to induce the testator to make a 
will different from what it is, and to change it after it was 
made, is abundantly proved : but there is no proof whatsoev- 
er that any one used the slightest degree of influence to in- 
duce him to make it what it is. His own inflexible will had 
predetermined what it should be; and, with the exception of 
a small bequest made to Mrs. Jenkins to gratify his father 
and his mother, it is now what he thus predetermined. The 
opinions of witnesses, much more those of attorneys, that he 
was under undue influence, are of no value. The law has 
wisely flxed the rule, that no inference of undue influence 
shall be drawn, either from the opportunities the parties may 
have had to use the influence, or the interest they may have 94 
had in the result. The facts must be proved, and from these 
the Court must form an opinion. If the rule were otherwise, 
wives, children and friends, physicians and ministers of spir- 
itual consolation, would all be compelled to desert the cham- 
bers of the sick and the dying, or have their motives im- 
pugned in Courts of Justice. 
One of the conjectures of counsel is, that the testator’s 
spiritual adviser influenced him to make this will. That Mr. 
Piatt was strongly attached to the Catholic Church, is admit- 
ted. That he had great confidence in his spiritual adviser, is 
admitted. That he consulted him on all questions of con- 
science, and disclosed to him the secret faults of his life, may 
be admitted. That he followed his advice in everything that 
affected his peace of conscience here and his salvation here- 
after, may also be admitted. But to suppose that he ever ad- 
vised with Father Driscol, or any other priest, as to the man- 
agement of his worldly affairs, or that any priest was capable 
of advising him on such subjects, is preposterous folly. His 
character and capacities, as a business man, are sufficiently 
developed in the evidence to satisfy any one that, on all sub- 
jects of property and the management of secular business, he 
was capable of teaching all the priests in and about Cincin- 
nati, from Archbishop Purcell down to Father McMahon. 
That he had confidence in his own judgment is evident from 
his remarkable powers of the will—his determination to have 
everything his own way—his refusal to yield to the advice or 
the importunity of others. Confidence in one’s own judg- 
ment is what gives force to the will. The sternness of this 
man’s will never forsook him to the last. 
But let us look at this matter as developed in the proof. 
Does the proof warrant the idea that Mr. Piatt consulted 
priests and followed their advice in the management of his 
secular affairs? 
Mrs. Louise Piatt, on account of some peculiar interest she 
felt in John’s affairs, or from a general disposition to make 
herself useful in other people’s business, wanted to have a 
hand in making this will. She had heard how it was to be, 
and, not being satisfied, she beset Mr. Piatt on the subject in 
her own house, and undertook to surround him by the high 
functionaries of the Church to compel him to surrender his 95 
own judgment. She says: “I had heard rumors that he was 
“going to make his will and cut John off; and, upon one 
“ occasion, just as he was leaving our house, I detained him, 
“and said: I wish, before you make your will, you would 
“consult Archbishop Purcell; and he answered me, either, I 
“have consulted Father Driscol, or, that Father Driscol is my 
“Father Confessor, I do not recollect which.” Here was the 
interference of a busy-body in that which did not concern 
her, and a most characteristic and appropriate reply—one of 
those sarcastic remarks with which this sarcastic man might 
be expected to get rid of troublesome people. With Mr. 
Piatt, life was too short and time too precious to be spent in 
idle prating with a woman who had no right to meddle with 
his affairs, and was not capable of instructing him in busi- 
ness, especially that on which his own judgment was formed 
long ago. lie answered her according to her folly. She 
advised him to consult one priest, on a subject which he had 
no business with; and he informed her that another priest, 
who had just as little business with it, was his Father Con- 
fessor. That which would probably have insulted him, if it 
had come from a man, he treated as a joke when it came from 
a woman. He was a rude, sarcastic man, who used no more 
of ceremony than necessity required, and no more force than 
was sufficient for the purpose in hand. Like a sturdy bull, 
who, when he contends with his equal, puts to his horns— 
but rids himself of a fly by a slash of his tail. 
But this lady adds another instance, intended to make the 
impression that Father Driscol interfered improperly with 
the making of this will. Speaking of Mr. Piatt, she says: 
“I heard a conversation between himself and Archbishop 
“Purcell and his mother, in my house, it being on his .last 
“visit to Cincinnati. They were urging him to alter his will 
“and make a provision for the education of his younger chil- 
“ dren, and then to divide the residue of the property between 
“all the children, John and Carrie included. He promised 
“to consider the subject, and said he wished to do what was 
“right. He said he was not leaving the younger children 
“ more than he had expended on John’s education. He had 
“ expended more than $6,000 already. He regretted that it 
“did not meet the approval of the Archbishop. After the 96 
“Archbishop left, he retired to his room, leaving orders that, 
“when Father Driscol came (lie was expecting hrm, or had 
“sent for him—I can not tell which), he should be sent to his 
“room, as he wanted to see him. He came within an hour 
“and a half, and remained closeted with him for upward of 
“two hours—no one disturbing him. After that, I never 
“heard him speak of the will again, or of his willingness to 
“ change it.” 
The conclusion she here attempts to draw is, that Mr. 
Piatt’s mother and Archbishop Purcell were, at this time, in 
a fair way of inducing him to change the will, and would 
have succeeded, had not Father Driscol come in to advise 
him the other way. But she has no right, as a logician, to 
draw such a conclusion from any matters of fact which she 
states as a witness. First, he had made the Bishop no prom- 
ise to change the will, but only to consider the matter. Sec- 
ond, he had offered a most cogent reason why it should not 
be changed, and expressed his regret that it did not meet the 
Archbishop’s approval. Third, Father Driscol did not come 
there to counteract the Bishop; for Mr. Piatt was expecting 
him, or had sent for him, before his conversation with the 
Bishop. Fourth, he had never expressed a “ willingness ” to 
change the will before Father Driscol came; so that his never 
speaking of his “ willingness to change it” after he went away, 
implies just nothing. 
From this last interview detailed by the witness, three 
inferences only are to be drawn. First, up to this time pow- 
erful efforts were being made, through Mrs. Louise Piatt’s 
own chosen agents, to induce the testator to make a different 
will. Second, the witness, the testator’s mother and Arch- 
bishop Purcell, considered him in a proper condition of mind 
to make a will. Third, the testator, true to the instincts of 
his character, refused to yield his own judgment to that of 
other people. 
Let us turn, for a moment to the testimony of Dunn Piatt 
upon this point. Speaking of the testator, he says: “Driscol 
“was his spiritual adviser under circumstances that made 
“their relationship remarkably intimate. Brother has told 
“ me, frequently, that he referred all his affairs to his spiritual 
“adviser. He believed that all business, all government, 97 
“every tiling, should be under control of the Church. * * 
“ He told me he was going to burn his library. * * He 
“said he had consulted his spiritual adviser, and he concurred 
“with him, that it was better to burn them up.” 
This witness has not told us the “circumstances” which 
made the “ relationship ” between the testator and his spirit- 
ual adviser so “remarkably intimate.” These are left to 
conjecture, and that, too, with a mysterious daintiness of ex- 
pression, as if the witness knew something terrible which, 
for the credit of his own family, he would not for the world 
reveal. And, like the preceding witness, he has been unable 
to state a single instance in which the testator either asked 
Father Driscol’s advice, or was influenced by it, in secular 
matters, except one. He resolved to burn his library, and 
consulted Father Driscol, who advised him to burn it up. 
But did he burn the books, in obedience to this advice ? iso; 
there they are to this hour, eighteen hundred in number, 
without the smell of tire on one of them. The proof shows 
that he burnt “ Hot Corn ” and “ Rabelais,” books which no 
man of decency would allow to go into the hands of his chil- 
dren, and which he got only by purchasing books at auction 
in lots, which he had to overhaul and expurgate, as every 
other wise man does who buys books in the same way. This, 
then, the only instance which the witnesses can state, dis- 
proves the point. If Father Driscol advised the burning of 
the library, and Mr. Piatt did not burn it, it proves him a 
self-willed, disobedient son, on whom the priest’s advice was 
thrown away. 
Mr. Rairden is called to prove that the testator was entirely 
under the influence of Catholic priests in the management of 
his worldly affairs. He shall be heard in his own words: “I 
“ have heard him say that he should obey the directions of 
“ his priests in anything they should direct him, even if his 
“ own opinion should be against them. This was in a mo- 
“ment of controversy, when he had got a little out of humor; 
« and I did not think he meant what he said.” Ho more did 
Louise or Dunn Piatt think he meant what he said when he 
made similar expressions to them. They knew perfectly 
well, that it was impossible that a man whose business was so 
extensive and so multifarious, should, in the broad, unquali- 98 
fied sense in which Dunn Piatt expresses it, refer all his affairs 
to his spiritual adviser. Whenever this construction is given 
to the testator’s language, the whole idea is involved in unut- 
terable ridicule. You are to contemplate a man of large and 
diversified property—of extensive and multifarious business, 
managed with skill and success to the last hour of his life, 
from day to day addressing his Father Confessor thus: 
“Holy Father: it is my opinion that everything should be 
governed and directed by the Church, and to that end I shall 
want your advice continually. And I fear me it will require 
all your time; but you must he patient with me, and keep me 
from sinning against the Church. 
“Holy Father: there is a Judge to be elected in Hamilton 
count}". I have always been a Democrat, and always hated 
the accursed thing called Americanism. Yet, in view of his 
experience and ability, I have a preference for Mr. Parker, an 
Episcopalian and a Know Yothing: is it lawful forme as a 
Catholic to vote for him? 
“Holy Father: I have lawsuits of my own, of my brother 
Dunn, of my father, and of my clients, which feeble health 
and the multitude of business will not allow me to attend to. 
Who would you recommend to me as an attorney ? Here is 
Johnston, a heretic in religion, running to perdition after 
Methodists and swaddlers: yet I should like to employ him, 
if it is lawful, and the Church has no objection. What do 
you say, Holy Fatlier ? 
“ Holy Father: we are out of a family physician now, and 
I do not wish to employ another without the advice and ap- 
probation of the Church. I have a preference for Dr. Wood : 
but he is a natural born heretic—he and his fathers before 
him being Quakers. May I lawfully employ him? 
“ Holy Father: seventeen years ago, before my conversion 
to the True Church, I patronized and employed Dr. James Tay- 
lor as a dentist, and have continued ever since to employ him 
myself and recommend him to my friends : but he is a heretic 
and a Presbyterian. Would you require me on that account 
to dismiss him from my employment, or may I still retain 
him without violence to the laws of the Church? 
“Holy Father: I am about to build a new kitchen and 
dining room to my house: which will be most in accordance 99 
with the laws of the Holy Mother Church—to build of stone, 
brick, or wood? 
“ Holy Father: I shall want a lot of lumber to complete 
my buildings. Where would you recommend me to purchase, 
in Lawrenceburg, or Cincinnati? or is it lawful for me to 
decide, as I used to do, in the days of sin and folly, in favor 
of the market where I can buy at the low’est price and on 
the best terms? 
“Holy Father: it is not always convenient for me to send 
all the way to Cincinnati to purchase a lot of goods. Mr. 
Parry, of Lawrenceburg, can supply me as well: but he is 
a heretic in religion, and a Know Nothing in politics. Is it 
lawful for a Catholic to patronize such a man ? 
“Holy Father: I have a great many houses in Cincinnati 
under rents, and some hard cases for my tenants. I must 
have a trusty agent to collect my rents and keep my houses 
in order. Whom shall I employ? I have a son, unfortu- 
nately a heretic and a Protestant, who vexes the life out of 
me going to hear swaddlers preach. Shall I incur the anath- 
emas of the Church if I should employ this youth as my 
agent ?” 
All this nonsense, and worse and more of it, is compre- 
hended in the sweeping declaration of Dunn Piatt: “Brother 
“has told me, frequently, that he referred all his affairs to his 
“spiritual adyiser.” What he may have said in jest or irony 
to get rid of various annoyances, one thing is clear: he 
did not refer all his worldly affairs to Father Driscol. The 
thing was both morally and physically impossible. Besides, 
Driscol testifies, unequivocally, that he never was consulted 
by the testator, and never gave him any advice, touching 
worldly affairs, and did not know any thing about the will 
till after it was made. 
If this will had been the work of Catholic priests, one 
would be looking for some advantage from it to the Catholic 
Church. But not one dime is given to the Church or any of 
its institutions, moral, literary or benevolent. The Church is 
left to shift for herself, without even being named in the will 
of a man alleged to have been a monomaniac on the subject 
of Catholicism. This priest, then, had no more to do with 
this will than an unborn infant. He could have no rational 100 
motive for interfering in the matter; and his truth and integ- 
rity being unimpeached, his own solemn oath, in the absence 
of all proof on the other side, must put this conjecture to 
rest forever. 
Did any one else exercise undue influence in procuring this 
will to be made? It was so much and so exclusively the tes- 
tator’s own work, that no one of his friends, or the friends of 
his wife, was satisfied with it; and, although removed from 
his wife and all her kindred to the house of his brother, and 
there beset by the three persons whom he held in veneration 
above all others—his father, his mother, and the Archbishop 
of his Church—he persisted to the last in his refusal to change 
it. If there is any shadow of suspicion left, that the testator 
was practiced on by priests or others, in his last illness, to 
induce him to make his will as he did, it is rebutted by the 
fact that he had long before determined upon the disposition 
he would make of his property: so that he only carried out 
in sickness what he had resolved to do in health. 
If it is claimed that the wife of the testator practiced undue 
influence on him in this matter, the first answer is, that the 
will is not favorable to her. She is carefully excluded from 
every dime which the law does not give her; and both the trust 
in the estate and the guardianship of the children are taken out 
of her hands, in the event of a second marriage. But the proof! 
"Where is the proof that she ever spoke to him, directly or indi- 
rectly, on the subject of making a will? Some of the witnesses 
swear, as a matter of opinion, that she had great influence over 
him. Doubtless, she had influence over him. Doubtless, she 
had much to do with forming the better parts of his character. 
Doubtless, she had much to do with shaping his better des- 
tiny. Doubtless, she had much to do with economizing his 
property and building up his estate. But is there any proof 
that she ever interfered with the disposition of that estate? 
There was much which she might have said with propri- 
ety. She might have said: “I found you a poor, heart- 
broken, desolate young man. Your path through life had al- 
ready been planted with thorns. For more than twenty years 
we have trodden that thorny path of life together. Our joys 
and our sorrows have been mingled in the same cup; and no 
matter how bitter the draught, I have never asked that it 101 
might pass from my lips, if it was the lot of my husband to 
drink it. The estate now to be disposed of is neither yours 
nor mine: it is the joint product of your industry and my 
economy. What you won by hard labor I saved by close 
economy. When you toiled all day in Court, or worked all 
night in your office, I staid at home and superintended the 
household, or sat by the cradle of our nine infant children, 
attending to the duties of a wife and a mother. The wives 
of bankrupts dashed in coaches, and flaunted in balls, con- 
certs, theaters and watering-places, while their husbands 
struggled with the world, and, struggling, fell: but my coach 
was never seen dashing through the streets, nor my finery chok- 
ing the places of fashionable resort. I lived in simplicity and 
went on foot when I was young, that I might have the means 
of educating and providing for our children when I should 
be old. Ho creditor of yours ever cursed my extravagance 
as the cause of his losses. Your first marriage was a sunny 
spot in early life, soon lost in clouds, darkness and storms. 
Had the object of your first love lived, she would have helped 
you, as I have done, to build up your fortune: and, in process 
of time, would have added her own. But she died before 
she ca,me to her fortune, so that no part of it came to your 
hands or mine. Whatever it was, it descended directly upon 
her daughters, and they are provided for. Your second mar- 
riage brought you sorrow, disgrace, law-suits and ruin—but 
not one dime in money. Your earnings and mine were taxed 
for twenty years for the separate maintenance of this second 
wife, and the son of this unfortunate marriage. By that son 
you have done a liberal part, as it was your duty to do. You 
have educated and prepared him for business, so that he is in 
better condition to battle with the world than my poor or- 
phans. It is not justice, it is not fairness, that the estate 
which owes as much to my economy as to your industry, 
should be equally divided with the children of those who con- 
tributed nothing to build it up. Besides, my children are 
helpless infants, yet to be brought up and educated, and I am 
to be left to battle with the world without your aid and pro- 
tection ; and larger provision should be made for us than for 
others.” 
All this, and more too, she might have said, without pass- 102 
mg the bounds of truth, or endangering the validity of her 
husband’s will. But she said not one word on the subject of 
a will—was unwilling to be present when the will was made. 
She saw the chastening hand of God stretched out over her 
and her little ones, and in meekness and sorrow she bowed 
herself to receive the blow. There were about her, from time 
to time, relatives and connections of her husband, to whom, 
in his life-time, he stood in the relation of a father and a 
friend, who had free access to her house, her hearth-stone and 
her table—as willing witnesses, too, as ever kissed the book in 
a Court of Justice, straining every shadow into a substance, 
every jest into sober earnest, every peevish expression of anger 
into settled and everlasting hatred, every eccentric remark 
into insanity, every sentiment of religious faith into supersti- 
tion or monomania: but not one of them pretend to have 
seen, or heard, or known, this lady, or any of her kindred or 
friends, to importune her husband on the subject of his will. 
A large majority of tlie witnesses on both sides have not 
been noticed in this argument, because, first, the testimony of 
many of them was wholly irrelevant; second, because that of 
others was unimportant; third, because that of others was 
cumulative only to such as has been commented upon; and, 
fourth, because the reasonable limits of an argument would 
not permit. But their testimony is before the Court, subject 
to all legal exception, and to be considered according to the 
rules of law. 
If this will should be set aside on the grounds shown by 
the evidence, the will-making power ought at once to be blot- 
ted from the statute book, and no man henceforward be al- 
lowed to exercise control over his own property, no matter 
how strong the claims of justice, of wisdom, of prudence, of 
humanity, of gratitude may be. Next to this, the Statutes of 
Descents and Distribution should be abolished; and, as the 
body of the man returns to the dust from whence it was 
taken, so let the fruit of all his toil escheat to the world from 
whence it was gathered. 
JOHNSTON & CARROLL, 
Of Counsel for Plaintiff.