The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-11-25

NO proof that John a. Davis has done any
"ct = IN iayor Of said alleged son Of deceased.
| claim to be heirs to said estate.
Inc attack upon the integrity Of John A.
LAWS Is not made bv way of allegation and
PROC! OF any dishonest or default committed
~ nun during long life; but the attack on
nus integrity Is made BY conatruing certain
wee, to mean that since the death Of An
9tew, ne has developed into . monster Of
oePravlty, and is disqualified to take the
oMce Of administrator by reason Of want Of
integrity. In drawing the proper conclus-
ION from testimony Of the character under
court to weigh the testimony OF divers
witnesses by considering their appearance
ana manner of conduct ON tho witness
stand, and all the elements which add to.
or detract from, the weight which should
% given to testimony.
From such legitimate reasons the court
before whom the witnesses testified, may
nave disreRarded or given very little ore
dence to certain testimony which 10 made
me basis OF appellant's charges against
John A. Davis.
1t is not the province Of this court to pass
o upon the credibility Of witnesses, :or e de-
the utterances Of diverse witnesses whose
testimony is brought here in the record.
Ihat province must be left to the judges
and jurors before whom the witnesses APP
pear and speak.
At the trial Andrew J. Davis. Jr.. was
John A. Davis.
This witness testified that he was the CON-
hdential agent and business manager Of hia
Uncle Andrew for long time prior to An
drew's death. and knew about the effects
OF deceased. The witness testified gener-
ally az to the character and value Of the
assets belonging to the estate.
I'm cross-examination il was developed
that this witness claimed to own certain
shares OF stock in the First National bank
OF Butte formerly belonging to deceased.
by virtue of gift and actual delivery there
Of TO him By his uncle Andrew, at the time
the latter was preparing to 60 to Tacoma, b
few months prior to his death.
The details of this alleged gift were in
CURED into and the witness related them.
Another witness was called and testified to
the same effect. Respondent John A. Davis
was questioned regarding the same matter
know that be had heard it said that his
brother Andrew, shortly before the latter's
death, had given said bank stock to Andrew
j. Davis. Jr.
This witness further said he did not recol.
lect Of ever having asked his son Andrew
WNotAAoE VI NOT tU6b xQU1OE W00 VE00s
It 10 urged that this fact that respondents
son has claim adverse to the interests Of
the heirs Of said estate. ought to disqualify
respondent to take the Office of administra-
tor on the theory that the respondent would
be likely to favor his sons claim. This fact
has NO bearing upon the question Of John
A. Davis integrity. nor upon any other
ground Of disqualification alleged against
respondent.
A man o. the most upright character and
Of the strictest integrity. and free from al
disqualifying conditions prescribed in the
statute. may have son who claims inter-
ests adverse to other claimants OF an estate.
the fathers right to letters of administra-
ton on snch pretenso az that.
II q dispute arise between Andrew j.
Davis, Jr.. and other claimants of said bank
stock. the law has ample facilities and
methods to bring such dispute to trial and
of the administrator.
The said claim OF Andrew ]. Davis, Jr., is
against the interests Of his father, John A.
Davis. The legal presumption is that q
man acts in favor of his own interests.
(Higman '. Stewart. SO Mich. 513).
contends that John A. Davis would pre-
sumably act fraudulently in aid Of his sons
claim, 1t must be answered that no such
presumption arises from the mere relation
ship ct father and con.
Inc iegal presumption ls tneG man acts
nonestly ana W1gnout 1ral1: fFaud u new
Is Ptesumeo. lnasc9 Y: biey, - Ousn. ~;
O1 Ma y; nA1Llson. z. ~: l1S.
Inc legaI maxim ID: Odiosa eE lnhonosta
non n stunt N leee Preaumenda. 30 It y said
~ uoIo Oo1e. IN an ICY Wnicn paftaketn
Dosn OF gooo ana pad. me presumption is
- 1avol % !nas Y Rooo oecause ooious an0
u 1Nn 4: SM ~ arc nos 70 De presumed.
SSoA1 Ls. 20 ~ oac1s0n =. Muler' "end.
80 ~; 1Maoolsh0m V Topping, % Am. Lee.
o'Gi otewaIt y. fIeston. fLorioa ~.
! ~ snls oonneosion sne seetlmony OF sonn
i =. Davas % ~ ~ enecs INA! ne nao no
tKnow!e0ge q sne claim OF MS son 20 SAID
PAM STOCK, - criticlseo al EVIDENTLY I'M
true.
laeIe - =! ne evioence IN me record 70
snow snas TINS u untrue put the arguments
y M Maae rom iniefenoes OF relssionsnip.
!. Inc pse199mpt.on u tn6s Mltness SPEAKS
sue .lusn Noec' otS coog O1y. froc.l
Mo5eoveI u sonn a. Davis - man VINO
wouia tesSlIy ialsely ana aesireo 70 ald ms
son AnulsW ~ euPpUrs OF yne claim 20 sara
ganA ssook, low eaMiy ana plauslo!y could
ON aave gwen ey!oence ~ supRort OF ms
sci cla'Nl, cons!uofAn9 .nSv yonn Wae tne
ASA = A~N4 vAsAsO HAAVS w VsAV <AV0vAA Va h0~