The herald., 1894-12-13
END Of THE PRATT WILL CASE
Judge Clark Rules in Favor of
the Contestants.
Points of His Judgment, Which Was
Rendered Yesterday.
Tho Last Chapter in the Main Issue of
This Notable Salt, InvoivIng
Heavy Interests, Il
Now Closed.


As might have been inferred from the
jury's verdict on the special Issues. tn,
court hssruled in favor of the contest
ants. At the same time the claims pu,
forward by the proponents have been
examined, although subsidiary matters
have not been dilated upon. The opin-
ion is as follows:
Two Instruments, the one bsarine
date April 2S, 1881. and the other bear
ing date June 3, 1855, were offered for
probate Gs the will OF deceased and q
codicil thereto. The probate thereof
was contested and opposed by daugh-
ter OF deceased and by two grandchil-
dren, the children of a deceased con. A
jury trial was demanded and had, aud
the verdict OF the jury was a special ver-
dict, as required by section 1914, 9. G..
F., which reads:
The jury after hearing the case must
return Il special verdict upon the issues
submitted to them by the court, upon
which the judgment of the court must
be rendered, either admitting the will
to probate or rejecting it," Upon the
rendition OF the verdict it was entered
In the minutes OF the court and an or
der made reserving the case for argu-
ment and further consideration. pnrsu.
ant to the provisions OF section 62S G.
Z. 7. Both contestants and proponents
now movs for judgment upon the ver-
dict; the former tor an order or iudg.
ment denying the probate of said instru.
ments, and the latter FOR an order or
judgment admitting the same to pro.
bate. The verdict is in the form OF 81
Issues of fact found, and it may be
summarized as follows, VIZ. 1t found
that neither instrument was signed,
published nor at:ested in the manner
and form required by section 1876. civil
code; that the instrument OF date April
IS, 1881, AS presented, is entirely in the
hand.riting of the deceased, including
tbs date and signature, but that su6se-
quent to tho time when the came was
usted and signed. it was altered by re-
moving certain paragrs phs and inserting
Others. which are specified; that the
paragraphs or clauses 80 Inserted are in
the handwriting OF the deceased;
that such removals and insertions
were made By the deceased;
that they were not made with an intent
To revoke the viii, and were made prior
" ChO lCCC tlldt Ill tub yea! 1888
the deceased made will containing
clause expressly revoking all pcior Wills
by her made; tnat the instrument of
June ). 1885. including the dat. and
signature, Is entirely in the handwriting
OF deceased; tnat it's execution WAS not
obtained through the fraud or undue
Influence OF John Mansfield, Anaeb f..
Mn aueiield and Louisa e. Gross, or either
OF them that the deceased attached this
last mentioned instrument TO the in
strument of April 2S, 1881, with an
intent To make the came her will, en-.
closed tho instrumH US in n sealed en-.
velops, endorsed npD.i the envelope in
her own handwriting the words my
last and vii, and testament. Annie A.
Pratt. May, 'S6:" delivered the en-
velope and its enclosures to John Mans.
field, and he delivered the same to this
,olr, for probate in the same condition
ss when received by him; that at the
time OF the execution of the instrument
OF June ) 1855 the codicil so called, and
ct the time Of the delivery OF the en-
velope aCd Its enclosure to John MaEs-
held, the deceased was OF an unsound
mind. The counsel for proponent
urge that the findings OF the Jury
upon the Issues bearing upon the revo
cation Of the will OF 1881 by the will oi
1854, and the tnding that ON June 3.
1888, the deceased WAS OF unsound mind,
shOuld be disregarded They contend
that The issue numbered inventory 90
should not have been submitted to the |
jury In the form III which it was sub |
mltted, !. e., Was the deceased, Anne |
A. Pratt, on June 8, 1885, OF sound !
mind? 10 which the jlry answered |
Mo-" bnt that the Try should have |
found fne facts. leaving it to the court |
to determine whether she was mentally |
They cay that finding |
that testatrix was of unsound mind ie |
lnconciusive; That her mind might be |
lnsound, non constat che might possess
a Opposing mind. This argument is,
think, withont merit. In the caee OF
Clement5 vs.. Mctiinn, 33 Pac. rep. 92O, /
he question OF the mental capacity OF !
the ,eatator WAC Submitted to the Jury
II the same form as In the case at bar
ard the same answer returned. La the
court 1t was urged on behalf oi
appellants that the is4ue in this form.
I'D not present n question or finding of
act, bnt u conclusion of law only. That
,ourt, however, held that in the law
If wills the terms ''sound mind" and
disposing mind" were synonymous.
n the opinion it is said that "the term
ound mind as applied to the condition
" status o! e testator was fact. Il was,
or the purpoees OF the caae, an Ultimate
act, in the establishment of which the
,hysica! condition OF the party, his acts
md conduct, were the probative facts.
According to the finding of the jury the
estator was not Of sound nina at the
late of the execution of the will: il
iher words, he was OF unsound mind.
A person of unsound mind is an adult
gho. from infirmity of mind, ia incapa-
'le OF managing himself or his affairs
he term, therefore, includes insane
ersons, idiots and i'm beciles.' Black
.aw Dict; jenkins vs.. Jenkins heire, 2
Jana. l03. 1t is the possession of q
ound mind which is one OF the requisites
0 capacity to make will. G. c., 1870
he terms 'dispoaing capacity Of mind
Ie alternative or synonymous phrases
1 the law Of wills for sound mind and
capacity Black Law
let. The expression unsound mind
lually stands for and includes the want
a disposing mind or testamentary
apscity." That case would seem to be
aoisiye OF this point.
Proponents counsel further urge that
ls findings of the jury (being issues