to accept a reasonable compensation for the services rendered in connection with the contents of the will and the administration of the said estate."

The testimony in behalf of the complainants is substantially as follows: Mrs. Annie L. Dill, mother of complainants, testified that the family were living in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1898, where they had since resided; that her husband was the adopted son of the testator, Peter Dill, and that her husband's mother was Ann Dill, wife of said Peter Dill. The witness further testified that the first knowledge of or dealings with Mr. Adriaans and Mr. Lewis, or either of them, was in August, 1898, when one of them-she was not sure which-(it was in fact Mr. Adriaans) called at her home in Baltimore, and "said he wanted them (her children) to sign a paper for Mrs. Ann Dill, to get her some money, to Mr. Waters,-to get her some money;" that she remembered her husband saying that he did not wish to have anything to do with the matter, "and this gentleman was representing that the object was to get his mother (her husband's mother) some money." The witness was asked if she knew what the papers, which either Mr. Lewis or Mr. Adriaans wanted her to sign, were about, and replied "I paid no attention as to that, we thought it was to get some money for the children's grandmother, Mrs. Ann Dill, but I don't know what it was about, they just signed them, and I don't know whether they were read over or not; they may have been, but I don't remember whether they were;" that either Mr. Lewis or Mr. Adriaans called again in 1889, when the witness told him she did not wish to see him or have anything more to do with him, as she "had no interest and did not care to see him;" that the first information she had about the contract and deed of trust was obtained from Mr. Dumler, a Baltimore attorney representing her children, about a year and a half before she testified.

Marian A. Dill was about twenty-nine when she testified, and hence about nineteen at the time of the execution of the papers here involved. She testified that her father died in 1898; that not long before her father's death she saw either

Asked what then

Mr. Adriaans or Mr. Lewis in Baltimore. occurred, she replied: "Well, I signed a paper, I remember I signed a paper, but I don't know what it was, I don't know what the paper was, I don't know what it was except it was to get my grandmother some money, something like that it was;" that she was working at the time, and had only a half hour at noon for lunch; that it took her at least ten minutes to make the trip to or from her home, and that she remembers signing the paper at the office of a notary on Lexington street, in Baltimore, and returning to work within the half hour allotted to her; that she therefore was in the notary's office but a few minutes. She was again asked the occasion of signing the paper, and replied: "All that I remember is that it was to get some money for my grandmother. That was all that was explained to me, and that is all I know about it. I remember going to the office on Lexington street to sign for the money, so that my grandmother could get the money;" and that from the representations which were made at the time she thought that Mr. Adriaans and Mr. Lewis were acting for her grandmother, and not for complainants.

The next witness for complainants was John H. Dill, then twenty-eight years of age, or fifteen at the time the papers were executed. He testified that one of the defendants, in the fall before the death of witness's father, called at the family home. Asked to tell what took place, witness stated:

Well, as far as I remember it was supper time, and we were just finished our supper; in fact we were sitting in the kitchen, in the dining room, and my mother and my father were in the parlor, talking to a gentleman, and I don't know whether it was Mr. Adriaans or Mr. Lewis, and we were sitting there, and a time elapsed, and then we were asked to go in, andQ. In where?

A. To the parlor, where my mother and father and this gentleman were, and we were to go in one by one; and I went in, and I was asked to sign my name, and I signed my name and I left.

Vol. XXXVII.-5.

Q. What was the purpose of signing your name to that paper?

A. Well at that time-I do not really remember what was the reason. I know they were trying to get some money for

my grandmother.

The witness further stated that the papers which he signed were not read or explained to him. In cross-examination this witness was asked who told him that the object of the papers was to get money for his grandmother, and replied: "It was not told to me, it was only a surmise I had from overhearing the conversation about signing the papers."

The testimony of J. Edward Dill, who was thirteen years old when he signed the contract and deed of trust, and that of Leo A. J. and Maurice E. Dill, who were still younger, throws no further light upon the case.

William P. Dill, the eldest of the children, remembered that on a Sunday in the spring of 1898, he met Mr. Adriaans at his grandmother's home in the District of Columbia; that a conversation ensued between Mrs. Dill and Mr. Adriaans; that his grandmother said that the estate was all tied up, and that Mr. Adriaans was going to get her some money. The next time witness saw Mr. Adriaans was at the place of employment of the witness in Baltimore, where Mr. Adriaans called in the late summer of 1898. Witness testified that it was about 8 o'clock in the evening at the time, but he was still working; that there was a rule forbidding anyone to see employees during working hours, and that Mr. Adriaans experienced considerable difficulty in getting witness down to the office. Witness said: "After a while the boss let me down in the office, and the boss was standing outside the door, and I could see him anxious for me to get back to my work, and so Mr. Adrians showed me the papers, and he had been to my home, and I usually get home about 6 o'clock or a little after, and so I suppose they sent him down there to see me, to my place of employment, and after Mr. Adriaans showed me the papers, I saw my brothers' and sisters' names on there, and of course I had no time to read it,

to read anything, but I just saw my brothers' and sisters' names on this paper that Mr. Adriaans had with him;" that Mr. Adriaans told witness that it was the request of witness's father that he sign the papers, and that the object or reason for signing the papers, to quote from the testimony of the witness, was "to relieve my grandmother, to try to get her some money, and I didn't know how he was going to go about it, or anything else, but my grandmother told me about that, that she was going to get some money to relieve her."

All the foregoing witnesses testified that they had no knowledge of said deed of trust and contract until late in 1907 or the early part of 1908; and that such knowledge was obtained through counsel, who was sent to Washington to see about the settlement of the estate of their grandfather. Mr. Dumler, the attorney, gave testimony tending to corroborate these state

ments.

Mr. Joseph J. Waters, surviving executor under the will of Peter Dill, testified that he had been a member of the Bar for thirty years or more; that he had been engaged in active practice and was familiar with the probate practice in this District; that he had knowledge of what Mr. Adriaans and Mr. Lewis had done in connection with the probate of the will of Peter Dill; that he didn't "think they performed any services of value to the estate or to the complainant; rather, their services were a detriment;" that their services were not necessary for the protection of the interests of the beneficiaries under the will.

Mr. Strokmeyer, the notary before whom the deed of trust was executed by the complainant, had no recollection whatever concerning the matter, and did not even remember going to the factory to take William P. Dill's acknowledgment. He testified that if the signature and seal on the papers were before him, he could state whether the parties appeared before him. The production of the original deed of trust was thereupon requested, but it transpired that it had been misplaced by the defendant Adriaans, and therefore could not be produced.

Mr. Adriaans, testifying in his own behalf, stated that the first knowledge he had of the case was obtained through Mr.

Lewis, who, according to Mr. Adriaans, was more of a departmental lawyer than a general practitioner; that he learned through Mr. Lewis that the will of Peter Dill had been filed, and also a caveat thereto; that Mrs. Dill, the widow, was dissatisfied with Mr. Waters, and wished to retain somebody to defend the will; that he went to Mrs. Dill's house on the 30th of August, 1898, and was introduced to her by Lewis; that Mrs. Dill then made known her desire to employ counsel "for the purpose of defeating the caveat and to procure the probate of the will;" that he thereupon drew up the papers forming the basis of this suit; that a notary was procured before whom Mrs. Dill executed the papers upon the same occasion; that she gave witness a list of persons who would testify as to the soundness of mind of her husband; that at the same interview witness learned that a suit had been filed by the caveators in the circuit court of Prince George county, Maryland, against the executors "and other persons claiming under said will,” the object of the suit being the appointment of receivers pending the determination of the will contest; that he prepared an answer for Mrs. Dill to sign, and filed it.

The witness further testified that the day after the papers were signed by Mrs. Dill, he went to Baltimore to obtain the signatures of the complainants; that Mr. Lewis did not accompany him; that he had a letter from the widow Dill introducing him and "requesting that they also sign the same papers;" that he had a talk with the father and mother in the parlor, the children-except William P. Dill-being present, explaining to them the situation; that "their interest in the estate depended upon procuring the probate of the will." In his cross-examination, however, he was asked the condition of the father's health, and replied: "Well, he wasn't very robust, or very strong, but he was down stairs in the dining room and sat at the table. He read these papers over and he called the children in. I think the children were in the front room, and he called them and told them it was proper for them to sign the papers."

Later the witness stated that he explained, on this occasion,