The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-12

DcinB iobpeu anu cnedte0. ana 10 nave n mama
Tor penurious c'Jnduct." He thought, however,
that she knew low to keep her money, that she
was not vioe at and he did not deem II his duty to
interdict her. BE did not see hen after the sum-
mer OF 1855. The first medical witness thought
her insane and seemed to lay much stress upon the
deiuson IN 1868 In regard to her son. and her man.
ner at that time and her conduct when her son
was i'll in April, 1865. He did not see her for
about six months prior to her death, except as
he saw her passing in the street. The second
with what is called moral insanity. which is
characterized by cruelty to ones kindred" He
did not see her after April, 1865"
We may here observe that while Is true that
experts may give opinions. and that the opinions
OF medical men are freely received upon questions
Of professional skill, it is equally true that they
ought also TO state the facts upon which those
opinions are based, and that the opinions them
selves are not conclusive, but must be weighed as
other evidence.-5 La, 276; 4 Ann, 377; Jar.
man on Wills, rs.
Judge Howe concludes that no habitual state of
insanity has been established that penuriousness
or miserly conduct is hardly evidence of such
CONDITION; that the desire of deceased TO leave
her property to her neighbors, provided they
nursed her In her last hours, to attract their
klnd attentions; that neglect being incident to
innrmitles and extreme old age, the law gave
her such means OF controlling such attentions as
were due to her age and inhrmities; Vide Ian
guage OF Chancellor Kent in case of Van Alst vs..
Hunter, johnson, Ch., p. l4S) that Mrs. Chand-
ler's fear of being robbed and cheated was not
unnatural in an aged woman, living alone, and un.
visited by single relative over year before she
died. though they (plaintifs and their mother)
lived in three miles Of her house from 1861 to
ls6S that judging from the squalid style in which
she lived; the burning of her clothes and bed
clothing some time before the war;" at least
six years before her will, likely to have been
q sanitary precauton as an act of lunacy and that
even if it was an act OF pyromania II was never
repeated in any form; that the decisions which
peopled her mind at various times during sixteen
years were few, not permanent, and long separat-
ed in time from the date of the testament and that
however morbid they indicated merely cerebral
irritation at the time, and that the evidence affords
no trace of them after the year 1868, though the
will was made in 1866.
We are of opinion, therefore, that the plaintiffs
have not overcome the presumption of sanity,
which must exist in favor Of q will so rational as
that OF the testatrix in this case. And we are
confirmed in this opinion by the testimony for the
defense. We there find Mrs. Chandler, four weeks
before her death, consulting lawyer in regard to
suit which had been brought against her, and
stating the facts to him with clearness and ac-
curacy. Two days after she calls again upon her
counsel, informs him correctly of her family res.
tons, Of the fact that she has descendants and
states her desire to make will, so as to dispose
OF her property as she pleased. She mentions the
fact that she knows Mr.. Hero, and is advised TO
employ him as notary. On the day the will was
made, Mr.. Hero, with three witnesses, went to her
uOubc. DIG lOlQ llLu bu9 desired him 10
make her last will and testament. She die
lated to him the ideas written down in the will
She told him that no one had taken care of her.
meaning, doubtless, no one whose natural duty
1t was to care for herr that Mr.. Barrett had and
would continue to do SO. She then informed the
notary that she had some money in the house,
gold coin, which she did not wish to keep there as
she had some time before been robbed of her paper
money. She then went with assistance into the
next room and brought basket containing six or
QQv lie NJ in a. uAf ~.
there were 500, except one which contained s6O
The money was counted by the notary, and as he
says, proved to be in amount what she had stated.
The money was then handed to Mr.. Barrett. for
safe Keeping apparently, as she did not wish to
She then told the notary that Mr.. Barrett had
constructed tomb for her in one of the cemete-
ries "a fact elsewhere appearing In the evidenced
and that as part Of the consideration of his SER
vices, she desired to transfer to him certain
vaults she owned, and the written transfer was
therefore made. The plaintiffs urge that this was
an act Of insane folly inasmuch as she had given
him already over 5000 in gold, and had bequeathed
him all her property, but we cannot so regard it.
She had given him the gold for safe keeping. and
as for the rest of her property it was uncertain
when she would die, then defendent might not have
come into possession for years. She might have
used II up as well as the gold before her death. or
she might have revoked her will. We think the
act quite businesslike. The notary and the wit.
nesses were in her presence about two hours. She
seemed very svsricious woman, who deprived
herself OF all the necessaries and many of what
are generally considered the necessities of life,
but TO all OF these four witnesses she seemed to
be perfectly rational and to have an excellent
memory. Her capacity for business her deter
mined frugality, her knowledge of her property
and OF her legal rights, her prudent administra-
ton OF her sons estate, for fifteen months prior
TO the date OF the testament, appear elsewhere in
the evidence both for plaintiffs and defendant.
That she was very penurious and very eccentric
Is plain enough, but that she was habitually
insane is something We cannot affirm. She had in
former years, without doubt, on occasions sepa.
rated by long intervals Of time, suffered from
irritation Of the brain; but, from the evidence,
we must deem 1t TO have been Of the transitory
kind, which occurring long anterior to the tirse
OF the testament, does not cause the pre-.
sumption Of sanity as to that act to cease.
If the plaintiffs had shown that before these
isolated acts Of folly occurred, her habits of mind
were different and that these acts indicated per-
manent and morbid change if they had shown
that the decisions which visited her at various
times continued TO manifest themselves in some
form down to the time she made her will, as if the
result of q chronic state; in short IL they had
brought themselves within the rule that where in-
sanity is proved to have been habitual the burden
OF proof is shifted on the legatee the result might
have been different. But, as the case comes TO Us
i seems TO fall under the rule have cited, that
II the acts OF insanity are and occur at periods
distant from each other and from the date of the
the testament II not destitute OF good
nse, and betrayiDg no folly on its face will sus.
tain itself and be presumed to have been the Off |
spring of healthy yotion and lucid memory.
For the reasons given it is ordered and ad. |
Judged that the judgment appealed from be re.
Versed and avoided and that there be judgment |
q favor of defendant with costs in both courts.
BY associate JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. l407-Jsmes A. Lusk vs.. Graham & Cole,
Appeal from the Fourth District Court OF New Or.
cans. q. Roselius and r. H. Mari for appellant,
and Clarke Bayne and p. Soule for appellees.
This is case involving questions of partnership
Ind sale OF an interesting but not particularly
lovel or important character to the public Judg.
nent of lower court reversed.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. n5l--Collins & Leake vs.. John o. Friend.
Robinson Yeatman, garnshee. Appeal from the
Fourth District Court Of New Orleans. Cooley a
Phillina- for plaintiffs and snnellaas and NJ O.
Dunn for gsrnishee and appellant.
This Is suit of some interest, involving ques-
ions of garnishments, etc. Judgment Of the
over court reversed.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE J. @. TALIAFERRo.
No. l402-Bedelis G. Kellar vs. Mrs. M. L.. Fl.
Blanchard. Appeal from the Third District Court
)f New Orleans. P. Horner for plaintiff and
appellee; Z. Rawle and a. d NJ. VOORHEES, for de-