Isntsub ‘vQ eamcnrr. 43
Much stress is laid upon the fact,Jas disclosed in the testimony df
Mr. Comisky, one of the witnesses, that the morning after the death
of his wife, Keegan informed him of the fact of Mrs. Keegan’s death,
and in the same connection said he was going now to send to the
bishop for his box; but in the light of the relations which had ex-_
isted for some months previously between Keegan and his wife, and
the fears which he had expressed of her initiating steps to deprive
him of the control of his estate, it is very likely that he did not dare
to ask that the securities be returned to him, even that he might per- ‘
form some necessary work in regard to them, while his wife was liv-
ing, for fear of such proceedings, and that asisoon as she was dead
he felt relieved in that regard, and at liberty to do, in reference to
the property, whatever he felt, as a business man, was necessary to A
be done in order to properly conserve and care for it. Undoubtedly
the almost positive refusal and objections of Bishop Ireland to take
upon himself the responsibility of this trust, had the effect to induce
p Keegan to either expressly or impliedly promise that the bishop
should be relieved of all trouble in regard to the estate so long as he,
Keegan, was able to attend to it. This is natural and probable. It
is not likely, from the proof, that Keegan felt any special sorrow or
grief over the death of his wife, and such was theorganization of the
man’s mind that he perhaps felt a sense of relief when he knew that ‘
she could no longer annoy him, or interfere with his plans. These
arrangements in regard to the property for the primary ben•t of his
child, and the provision as to its future disposition in case of the
death of the child, would and could no longer be thwarted and em-
barrassed by the interposition of his wife, and he therefore felt free
to aid the bishop by such attention as heconld give the property.
. The proof is ample throughout the record that after the securities
were returned to Keegan he industriously, and, as far as his health
would permit, continuously applied himself to the arrangement and
attention which the business connected with the securities demanded,
but in all his dealings he constantlystated that what he was doing
was for the bishop, and more fully to consummate thelarrangement
he had made for giving the bishop complete controlof his estate. In _
April, 1879, hetold John Adams, an intelligent business maninthis
city, that he had ·“6xed everything relatingltoi his affairs; that he
had left everything to his child, and in caseof her death the whole
property was to go to Bishop Ireland, to build an institution for des-
titute boys in the diocese of Minnesota. * " *" The term he
used was "agricultura1 college for destitute boys." So, too, just be-