Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0234-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Matchett", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of Henry Rahn, Deceased. William Rahn, Appellant, v. John O. Krause et al., Appellees.
    Gen. No. 22,857. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal frqm the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Lockwood Honoee, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 21, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    In the matter of the last will and testament of Henry Rahn, deceased, William Rahn, contestant. From an order admitting the will to prohate, the contestant appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1365
      
      —when discretion in advancement of cause for hearing not disturbed. The advancement of a cause for hearing is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, with the exercise of which the Appellate Court will not interfere unless it appears it has resulted in manifest injustice.
    2. Executobs and administbatobs—what is policy of law as to estate matters. The policy of the law favors the speedy hearing of matters connected with the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, and, in the absence of an affirmative showing of injury by the party complaining, the fact that the litigation has been speedily heard and disposed of does not constitute error.
    3. Witnesses, § 207*—when cross-examination is within discretion of court. The extent to which cross-examination of a witness as to his reasons for concealing his whereabouts prior to testifying should he permitted is a matter largely in the discretion of the trial court.
    4. Depositions, § 34*—when denial of motion to suppress deposition is proper. Where a witness refused to answer further on cross-examination after having been questioned at length along the same general line, and the questions refused to he answered went only to the matter of his credibility and not to the merits of the case, held, under the particular circumstances, that there was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying a motion to suppress the witness’ deposition.
    5. Wills, § 143*—when prima fade case for proponents is made out. Evidence held to make out a prima facie case for the proponents, in the matter of a probate of a will, opposed by a contestant.
    Rothschild & Schaffheb, for appellant.
    Goldzier, Rodgers & Froehlich and Huttmahh, Olotes & Carr, for appellees. .
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.