The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-11-19

in condition to understand IL; that has
been my argument from the beginning. I
not that he could not have done it; | say
he may have made the signature and
not understand the act
The Court have presented II TO the
jury Tor consideration, that this we'll 4
written name could not have been exc
cuted by a man lying under the stupor /
OF these massive, and If Doctor Trous-
seau's opinion Is to be taken, highly /
dangerous doses of morphine 1t is in |
credible TO believe that a man could be !
aroused from such almost deathly stupor /.
and write that name. This testimony /.
must stand together and fall together, or
as the word derived from the Latin is, il
must be consistent, stand together Ii
would be rule for the consideration OF
evidence, that If you believe that he
wrote this name as Mr.. Thurston and
Mr.. Kinney described his writing, that
ii was also true, as they testified, that he
was clear in mind. that he was intelli-
gent, that he was fully intelligent, and that
he knew what he was doing; that follow
ing the direction very properly given by
his attorney-everyone does not know
how TO make a will-that he called for his
two witnesses, or had three, and that he
made, declared and published this for
his last Will and testament; that ii the
one part is not true the other is not: If
the one is, why they hang together?
1t Is an ancient maxim of law, talsus
in uno, falsus in omnibus false in one
thing, false in all, and the converse. 1t
is matter OF reason that what is true in
one respect is true in all things that are
consistent with it, and SO it would appear
that those who testified that he could not
have been in a condition to make such a
signature, and could not have been in
condition TO. understand what he was
| doing at the time, as in fact he did not
make the signature, so he was IN con-
| dition to understand what he was doing.
But as | have said, the case does not
vitality hang upon the fact that it was
| done on the 18th, if it was done in his
lifetime. 1t is not the law that the will
is valid if it was made on the day it is
dated, and not valid if it is in fact made
on another day, or il the witnesses are
mistaken as to the fact, we recognize
that every day and all the time One
of you may have done any particular
thing-you NAV have driven to the top
of Punchbowl and undertake to assign
the day, your wife disagrees with you
but you went there, that is fact.
This Court has said it is not necessary
to prove the date with accuracy or exact.
ness, as dates are uncertain in the
human memory, and that mistake of a
few months or longer in the date would
not be fatal to the will if it was substan
TALLY proved, that is the case of will
where they could not come nearer to il
at all that is law in this country and
elsewhere too. Haw. Reports, p. 10
There is one other principle to bt
stated that you should carry with you il
all your consideration OF this evidence
and this testimony, and that is, thai
there is presumption OF law in favor o
the sanity and competency of men W.
deal in that way every day. You are
) doing some business with man, bu
you do not first consider whether he il
r competent; you hear of transaction
: but you do not enquire, well, was th,
man sane or insane; unless it was
shown he was not an average man you
took it that he was. So that beyond
= proving in the ordinary way, as thes
s proponents of the will did, and as i
3 always the case in the probate of a vii
1 necessary to prove, that the man is c
a sound, competent mind and memory
l the contesting party is bound to prov
, that he was not so, so that the burdel
of proof to show that he was not com
| petent person to do the ordinary bust
t ness of life lies with those who set u
that proposition.
t Have you gentlemen anything to sa
Y about the form in which the jury shall
t render their verdict?
Mr. Hatch-I should say that the
2 should find for the proponents or con
testants.
} The Court-Your verdict will be
, you find in favor OF the will, we find
e verdict for the proponents, those VIII
have put the will in; if you should in
s that it is not good will upon the groun
e contended, your verdict will be for tn
L contestants.
Y Mr.. Hatch-I intend to ask the ruin
, of Your Honor upon these requests sine
e hearing the charge.
: The Court-Upon the matter Of tn
1 right and interest, the devisabie interes
], of John n. Robinson in the propert,
1; which he had enjoyed during his life
4 time. it is true as was state
e by counsel for the will, that he devise,
what he had, and that the will woul
1 carry that. If it should appear that I'm
r der the conditions, especially of hi
: fathers will, and the will OF Mr.. Law
l renee has not been shown here, do no
} know what it is, if usder the condition
1 of that will he did not have a right to de
S wise property which he had called his il
t his life time, then the will does not TAX
it. Your duty is to find whether this
| his will as he made it to devise all hi
l property, that is, all that was his
, The two first new instructions do no
think proper to give, the third point
) number eleven, that the jury are a
, liberty to find all the transactions c
r John n. Robinson and Mr.. Jaeger ant
others who dealt with him were dealin
, with person who was non compos, no
2 of legal status to do any business. If yo1
: 60 back to that, it is true that these per
sons dealing with him did not make hin
t competent if he were not SO, and woult
not establish as matter of law that h
was competent to make his will. Thos
transactions, however, stand as import
| ant evidences of how he was considere'
and treated by them.
The jury may retire.
The Jury returned in twelve minute
| with an unanimous verdict in favor G
: sustaining the will.
n i