The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1894-03-10
THE CATRON WILL CASE.
Continued from page L.

his intentions as to the final disposition
of his property, and all declarations of
said Nlinitree Catron and promises of
Martha Catron made to him to carry
out his wishes with respect to said
property devised her by said Minitree
Cation in his said will are not to be
considered by the jury.
There was no error in giving the
eighth instruction on behalf of the
plaintiff rs to the formal execution of
the will. The law is that formal proof
of the execution must be made by those
p~ropoundIng it, although it has al
ready been admitted to probate. liar
ris VS.. Hays 81 Mo. 80; Lamb Adm.
VS.. Mary Helm So Mo. 40.
The tenth instruction, given at the
request of the plaintiff, to the effect that
the Jury might disregard the testimony
of any witness, who, in their opinion.
hadwilfully sworn falsely to any material
fact in issue, was most unquestlonaDly
correct, and authorized by the facts in
the case: it has, in substance, repeatedly
met with the approval OF TINS court.
Co., Is Mo-, 553; State VS.. Elkins, G5
Mo-, $50. .
1t is claimed, however. that the court
committed error in admitting evidence
as to the financial circumstances of the
defendant, and of plaintiff and her hus-
band, and as to the amount of property
defendant had given his children. In
Thompson VS.. Ish, supra, it was ruled
that such evidence was admissible. pro-
yided it was kept within reasonable
bounds. To the same effect is Fair
child VS.. Bascom, IS Yer, 39S. But the
evidence in regard to the property which
defendant had given to his children
should have been excluded rs well also
as the deeds to and from the defendant.
The sixth instruction for plaintiff Is
as follows:
6. The Jury are instructed that in
making up their verdict in this case they
should consider the relationship of the
b~eneficiaries named in the paper e IN
evidence, to the testatriX; their condition
in life, and the amount and value OF the
estate of the testatriX, and If the jury
believe from the evidence that a dis
elimination was made in favor of n of
said beneficiaries, and that there is Il
great inequality in the distribution
between the children of the %testatrix,
then it devolves upon the defendant to
explain said discrimination and inc
quality, and to show that said instrument
was the free, deliberate offspring OF a
rational ,self-pOised and clearly disposing
mind.
niamre III ,na fo,Tn ihat II Was II was
SaiSS - ITorroi ys UarreJ 90 XIV 1O3
neit III n Az, Tty in tho Sisnnsitinns
.nas bloos rdII" az, no raasnn FOR II IL
.M.oata5 w IL will itself or nv The
suSSSs.et III in tmo sat;sfoctorv evidence
P,oon Tr \" that H. %as the free and de-
i;herat. ofrsnrinS of a rational. self
no;Sed and ciearly discussing mind. But
,pha fact in tbaf case showed beyond
.mo 'osn, tot the will was obtained
h Wy InSHa namenca Of tbe wife MIR.
RyedGa,d IN his work On the law of wills.
a.o un ep1 ..,irHat u,hen mo reason
page oot, says ,hor NAV in ~" sii, ar other,
70 III IrnsS ;nannaiitv In the disno-
VS., ,"r w,;I, nav nhsnga the hnr-
s,.I ' M M nv .hms -onnnnncad was
s seI dn nn ia, n,rnYa5 bv This Court in
ioaoweu ~ 90 Mo oS0 The
G 70 i ;nutr'ction that II ASSUMES
that there was no reason for the dis
c~r;n,ination shown NV he will or nv the
evidence while there were facts i'm proof
which tended to show a a for il.
In that case also fhe facts showed aside
from the unjust discrimination in the
will that it was obtained by fraud, and
threats of the son.
In view of the evidence which showed
that more than twenty wear or more
before. the t~estatrix had executed a will,
| of which the one i'm contest is almost a
counterpart; that she had said that the
McFadins should never have any of her
land; that daughter had said that she
had driven her father to suicide, for
which her mother said THAT she would
never forgive her." her displeasure
because her daughter conveyed away "a
tract of land i'm Carroll county, land that
her father gave her; her statements that
her daughter had ''given her a great
deal of trouble:D her manifestations
and expressions of greater affection for
her son than for her daughter; her many
letters to her son, filled with expressions
of tenderness and affection, and other
circumstances of a similar character,
we think the jury should be instructed
that if they believe from the evidence
hat there was reason for the discrimi-
nation. the burden of proof was not
shifted to defendant TO show that the
will was the free act of the testatrix,
Int was on fhe p%Iaintiff to show it was
obtained by undue influence.
TIC n,oSumrt,or 70 In favor of the
voi;ddi,y of tha viii and If cannot 40
vaieut.y VI w. ,o ~ n;us, d,S"r;n,ino-
tn nu tme its r" vi hotwaen thnSa
thnrohu nrol;ded for yyithont more
shirts Tho hvrdan on defendant if the
MI IN n,oof newest a raasnn Tor sncb
;p,tinn SGich was n nnestion
S tha inv 10 ~annnunce smell a rnIe
nn,id Eo IN sffect 70 boIJ that M one
oouid bv viii Wa,.e a SeeminSlv mnimst
Sd;;snr;r,;n.t;nr between those entitled Ia
h;S a.. har honntv without giving a
raoson therafor in The will But when
no peason FOR the uninst discrimination
ia shown Inv the will or otherwise and
tbare ia evidence of undue influence
then the burden Of proof il on the pro
Moment of the will to show some
proaSon for the discrimination. In Moore
$ N1onra ~ No lob tha deed Tae
SGuSH. ~ o~ n &c ,,rnv;S;ons and
uisSi inauon I'D = u,ns sa;d Inv
LILY anH oonnnrrad i'm nv all ~
No NO 2 nut a1,am ;f lie had onnaared
omJ out%;nr noora. IL oId man N6ore
anu hnd mind n6d mamorv enouah To cam.
nr.hnma amd nnJar,tand lie valne a,
onrnnortn OIL tho cnnd;t;on aud sit-
uaiipn IF tTosa who had claims on his
ho,,nty ba had tho r;ght to make the
JoaI T., o,oSt;on and If is not sufjicient
- ~ ~ ~ that - IL not in ai raSnacts
nipSatohh IL. haan axnaotad n ;a not
a ny - - that q norent has maJs
on ",sa,'oi distr;hntio Of his nroneriv
." - a. ,;oht 70 d;Snasa ~ III
ronarty hu aaaJ or will no ha nleases
PiG1HHia'y " GodS %Snnno,t IN Gov We
y IIhnnto Po'i.,o. 'rha,a Sharuond 7
oinu' spy an,rt .avs. Stint