The Bolivar bulletin. (Bolivar, Tenn.) 1888-1946, 1891-03-06
TENNESSEE STATE NEWS.
Two Noted wnl Case !,

Court today decided two very interest
ing will cases of general note. Justice
Lurton delivered the opinion in tho
| Franklin, which came up on assign
ment of error from Sumner County.
The opinion is lengthy one and re.
viewed the sensational contest between
| the Franklins. The synoptical points
of the decision give an insight into tho
case.
The Justice says: 1.-THE will in con-
test is on, purporting to have been ex-
ecuted in October, 1871, by j. A. Frank.
lin the testator, who died in November,
1871, and the paper sought to be probated
as will was produced in 1885 by Ed w.
| Franklin, who claims to have discov-
cred it in an old gun box which be-
longed to the testator. The discoverer
and propounder of the will is the brother
of the testator and the beneficiary
hereunder The paper is unattested,
| though claimed to be in the handwrit-
| ing of the testator, 1t is not insisted
that it is good as will of reality be-
cause unattested and not found among
the valuable papers of the testator. 1t
is alone offered as common law will of
personality. The probate is resisted by
J.iW. Franklin, the father of both A. j.
Franklin and Ell w. Franklin. 1t was
not an error to admit the evidence of
Ed w. Franklin, He was not sub
scribing witness, and, therefore, not ex-
c1uded by our statute of wills. That he
was interested went to his credit. 1t
does not, render him incompetent
''The appellant sought to defeat tho
will by showing that it was "a forgery
perpe trated by the beneficiary and pro-
FOUNDER. DIR. Franklin was asked
whether he had not before forged the
signature of several persons. He an
swered that he had not. appellant
then proposed to prove that he had
been guilty of these forgeries. This
evidence was excluded by the Court.
This was proper. The fact of forgery
of particular paper cannot be shown
by proof of other crimes of the same
character. If it had been shown that
he had written the will, and the defense
had been that it was written innocently
or upon direction of the testator, then
such evidence might have been intro
duced to show guilty motives in other
offenses of the same kind. That is not
the question here. The will is sus.
tanned"
The other will case was decided by
Judge Caldwell, and is the somewhat
celebrated one of Tyree, Rodes, ct al,
against Atchison, ct al, which came up
from Giles County. Rodes, Sr., died IN
1859, and was one of the wealthiest men
in his county. He left young widow
and son about years old named Cliff
ton. Almost in the act of death Rodes
signed will which had been carefully
prepared for him by his lifelong friend,
Judge Jones, of Pulaski. His widow
qualified as executrix of the will and as
testamentary guardian of her son. Her
settlements were made in the court un.
der the will by bill filed for the pur-
pose.
The estate was wound up in 1874,
when Clifton Rodes became Of age. His
mother died in 1885. He continued to
live there unmarried till 1887, when he
died. having devised his property to his
maternal cousins, John B. and Clifton
Atchison Within few weeks his pa
ternal uncle, Robert Rodes, began a
contest of Clifton Rodes' will, and few
weeks later Robert Rodes died. Two
days after his death this bill was filed,
setting up the fact that Clifton Rodes
had no right to make any will, because
when his father died in 1858 he had ex-
ecuted will devising to Clifton Rodes
for life and the complainants in fee.
This will had been lost and never pro.
bated. 1t was further alleged that all
the witnesses to the will were dead,
Robert Rodes being the last, except
Mr.. Rodes' overseer, Bromlette, then
resident of Georgia.
There were four trials, two hung
iuries and two verdicts for defendants,
and today tho last verdict, which was
for defendants, was affirmed. The sum
involved is $4,000. f