The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-11-25

he knew what he was doing; that follow
ing the direction very properly given b,
his attorney-everyone does not know
how TO make a will-that he called for hi
two witnesses, or had three, and that h,
made, declared and published this fol
his last will and testament; that if tn,
one part is not true the other is not: Il
the one is, why they hang together
IL Is an ancient maxim OF law, falsus
/ IN uno, falsus in omnibus false in one
thing, false in all, and the converse. II
is matter OF reason that what is true in
one respect is true in all things that are
consistent with it, and so il would appear
that those who testified that he could not
have been in 4 condition to make such a
signature. and could not have been in
condition 10 understand what he was
,'oias at the time, as in fact he did
make the signature, so he WAS in con-
dition 10 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, il 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 il it is in fact made
on another day, or il the witnesses are
mistaken as to the fact, we recognize
that every day snd all the tune. One
of you may have done any particular
thing-you may have driven to the top
of Punchbowl and undertake to assign
the day, your wife disagrees with you
and proves that you have the wrong day,
but you went there, that is fact.
This Court has said il is not necessary
TO prove the date with accuracy or exact
ness, as dates are uncertain in the
human memory, and that mistake of
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 it
st all; that is law in this country and
elsewhere too 3 Haw. Reports, p. 10.
There is one other principle to be
stated that you should carry with you in
all your consideration of this evidence
and this testimony, and that is, that
there Is presumption OF law in favor of
the sanity and competency of men; we
deal in that way every day. You are
doing some business with a man, but
you do not first consider whether he is
competent; You hear of a transaction,
but you do not enquire, well, was the
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 these
proponents OF the will did, and as is
always the case in the probate OF a will
necessary to prove, that the man is OF
sound, competent mind and memory,
the contesting party is bound to prove
that he was not so, so that the burden
OF proof to show that he was not COM
petent person to do the ordinary bust
ness OF life lies with those who set up
that proposition.
Have you gentlemen anything to say
about the form in which the jury shall
render their verdict?
Mr.. Hatch-I should say that they
should find for the proponents or con-
testants.
The Court-Your verdict will be if
you find in favor OF the will, we find a
verdict Tor the proponents, those who
have put the will in; if YOU should End
that II is not good will upon the ground
contended, your verdict will be for the
contestants.
Mr.. Hatch-I intend to ask the ruling
OF Your Honor upon these requests since
hearing the charge.
The Court-Upon the matter of the
right and interest, the deyisable interest
OF John n Robinson in the property
which he had enjoyed during mis- life
time. it is true as was stated
by counsel for the will. that he devised
what he had, and that the will would
carry that. Ii it should appear that I'M
der the conditions, especially of his
fathers will, and the will OF Mr.. Law
renee has not been shown here, do not
know what it is, if under the conditions
OF that will he did not have right to de-
wise property which he had called his in
his life time, then the will does not take
1t. Your duty is TO find whether this is
his viii as he made it to devise all his
property, that Is, all that was his.
The two first new instructions do not
think proper to give, the third point,
number eleven, that the jury are at
liberty 10 find all the transactions OF
John y. Robinson and Mr. Jaeger and
others who dealt with him were dealing
with person who was non compOs, not |
Of legal status TO do any business. II you |
20 back to that, II Is true that these per-
sons dealing with him did not make him |
If he were not so, and would |
not establish as a matter OF law that he |
was competent to make his will. Those
however, stand as import
ant evidences Of how he was considered |
and treated by them.
The jury may retire.
The jury returned in twelve minutes
With an unanimous verdict In favor o.
sustaining the will