The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1883-01-27
ABOUT WILLS.

ABOUT WILLS.
The will case recently tried in our
court furnishes several suggestions
which persons contemplating the making
of such a document would do well to
consider.
In the first place, death bed is bad
place for making will. Frequently the
thoughts. He is more susceptible to
kind attentions, and while the bitter
nesses of life may be, and generally are,
softened, still those who think they have
not received their fair share of the tesla
tors bounty will attribute their failure
to undue influence on the part of those
tact with the deceased.
When will is made, and the testator
errors. Hence, the work should be I'M
dertaken when he is free from weakness,
and has full opportunity to consider his
action.
All other things being equal, 4 man
contemplating the execution of will,
had better employ lawyer.
Many slovenly wills have been written
by lawyers, and many carefully drawn
testamentary papers-llke the one before
the court last week-have been the work
of laymen.
But men have the undoubted right to
do as they please with their own, and
where determinations are made, a will
drawn by careful lawyer. with repu-
tation for integrity and prudence, is much
less likely to be attacked.
We presume there is little doubt that
the will of Captain Iayman : as his un-
constrained act.
He had undoubtedly contemplated a
will, in many respects like the one he
left
Six months before his death, and the
evidences of undue influence were alto
gether too slight and intangible to JUS
tify any tribunal in setting it aside.
1t may not have beer what the gen.
eral public would call a just will, but the
testator owned his own property, had
made it by his own exertions, and had
the right to dispose of it just as lie
pleased.
but when it comes to depriving him OF
his rights, that is a serious matter.
Besides this, the testimony as to Capt.
Layman's mental capacity was over
| whelming. He dictated his will, item
by item. and gave clearly his reasons for
every bequest. We believe it is an
axiom that no viii was ever set aside for
undue Influence, when the testator' S
mind ,r0s free from inlfrmjty.
This has been fully recognized by the
courts. and we think no case can be
found where will has been set aside
upon such inconclusire testimony as that
adduced by the contestants in the Lay
man case.
Perhaps the case in Maryland which
comes nearest to this one in its peculiar
facts is that of the will of John Good
hand, which Is reported fully in the Goth
Maryland Reports.
They are briefly as follows:
John Goodhand was twice married,
Inv al i1Gr.n h,-l hi. T.
and one by his second wife.
The will was made when he was very
old, and in feeble health. and gave val
liable leasehold property to his daughter
by his last wife, beyond what was re-
ceived by his other children. The con-
testantS proved that Goodhand said, he
made will for the purpose Of making
peace witt, his wife. That he was greatly
troubled by her in reference to making a
will. That the old woman was raising
the devil at home. That he had no peace
or comfort of his life. That he had to
make the paper in question to have some
peace, for she would have worried him
to death if he had not done it,
This was repeated TO witnesses on sew
eral occasions.
That in his last hours lie wished him
self 4 thousand miles away from his wife
1t was further proved:
That Mrs. Goodhand solicited seyeral
persons to urge her husband to make a
will in favor of her daughter.
That AZ one time she demanded Il large
sum of money: that he d id not have it,
but was compelled by her to borrow it,
and then stated to the lender: @ | have
no peace at home, or comfort of my life.
| have but short time to live, is not my
peace worth this money?
That he declared his intention to die
without a will, and make no distinction
between his children.
This testimony was taken before the
Orphans Court, and on appeal, Chief
Justice Bartol said: This record GER
tainly furnishes no evidence of any such
importantly or undue influence in pro-
curing the execution of this will, as to
take away from the testator his free
agency, in the face of the fact that the
testator was of sound mind
The jury which decided the I.ayman
case may comfort themselves with the
reflection, that they have very high au-
thority for their verdict.
There are some public considerations,
also. which result from this will case.
Would it not be well to adopt law
similar to that in force in some of the
States, making invalid all wills not exc
cutad two or three months before the
death of the testator, except in case of
accident or sudden death?
How far the unpleasant exposure of
family secrets and weaknesses and follies
ought to be prevented, as they are in
divorce cases, by a trial before the
judges. is another question which law
makers would do well to consider.
If the testimony were taken in the
Orphans Court AMI reduced to writing,
ali the heirs of the testator summoned,
and the right reserved to any one of