The probate court was authorized to believe this testimony and, based thereon, to find that the proffered will was a forgery. Thus, as against a general grounds objection, the evidence was sufficient to support the probate court's judgment. However, propounder also enumerates error in some of the probate court's evidentiary rulings. Propounder called certain of the beneficiaries under the proffered will, who testified to statements made to them by Decedent concerning the disposition of his property. The probate court refused to consider this evidence, however, on the ground that it was inadmissible hearsay.
Hearsay evidence is admitted only in specified cases from necessity.
The Code sets forth a number of those instances in which hearsay evidence is admissible. The testimony excluded here does not come within any of those specifically enumerated exceptions, but that list is not exhaustive and exclusive of all other cases wherein hearsay is admissible. Therefore, we need to decide whether the statements attributed to the Decedent fall within an additional hearsay exception which is not specifically set forth in the Code. Greater latitude is given to the admission of parol evidence on the issue of probate than on the construction of the will after probate. This is consistent with the weight of authority favoring the admissibility of declarations of an alleged testator, both those made before and those made after the date of the purported will, on the issue of forgery of the will, where the issue is raised by other substantial evidence, and proof of the declarations is corroborative of other testimony.