The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-07-27
FRANCIS WILL SUSTAINED
Opiaioa Filled BY Register Of Wills
Hopkins In the Case.
REASONS HIS ACTION
Relieves N :. Francis Was OF sound
Mind q Time She Dsp ,sed OF Her
Property and That she DID
Not Aftcrward Marry.

By an opinion filed yesterday Regis
ter Of Wills Hopkins sustains the VIII
OF Mrs. Rachel Francis. late OF FroVi-
dence, and revokes the letters or al
ministration granted at the request OF
four Of her children soon after her
death.
Mrs, Francis was well known In the
northern part Of the city anu ieit
valuable estate consisting of properly
In this city and MoOsic. She was sur
vived by six children. and -four OF these.
Evan Morris Francis. Mrs. Mary Jane
Thompson. Mrs. Mary Ann Colvin. ana
william Francis. she cut on with %
each. To her other two children.
James Francis. Of this city, ana MIS-
Elizabeth Beale, Of New York. she gave
her entire estate. the son receiving the
largest share.
Mrs. Francis died on April Z, 1895. and
believing that no will was In existence
Evan Morris Francis asked for and OBJ
tained letters OF administration on the
estate. Later on James Francis or
fered the will for PROBATE and subse-
Quently the proceedings to have the pro-
bate of the will set aside were insu-
tuted. In dismissing the application
yesterday Register Of Wills Hopkins
handed down the following opinion:
Opinion Of Register hopkins.
This case came up before the register
upon petition and citation to show
cause why the probate OF the Will OF
Rachel Francis. deceased. shall not be
stricken Off and letters testimentary
granted thereon to James Francis re-
voked. The parties to the controversy
both on the part OF the petitioner and
respondents are children Of the de-
ceased. The contestant by their petit
ton and alleg gations attack the validity
Of the will and allege:
First, that Rachel Francis, at the
time Of executing said will. was OF un-
sound mind.
Second, That after the hearing had
commenced and was In progress, they
came In by supplemental petition ana
were allowed to amend their bill or
complaint in which they allege as
further reason for setting aside SAID
will, claiming that by reason of said
subsequent marriage the will falls un-
der the provisions Of the sixteenth Sec
ton of the act Of 1888, and was therefore
revoked and void at the time or Its
probate.
The respondents by their answer
deny all the allegations as set forth by
the petition. both as to testamentary
incapacity and subsequent marriage.
Many Witnesses Examined.
The hearing In the case was quite
extended, and the testimony OF many
witnesses was taken both on the part
OF the contestant and respondent, and
as in most Of the cases Of this character
the testimony Is more or less conflict
ing.
The first question that we are called
to pass upon under the evidence ad-
duced upon the hearing Is this: Was
the testatrix, Rachel Francis, OF un-
sound mind at the time she executed
said will? II the evidence upon this
point was sufficient to warrant US In
answering It in the Affirmative, We
could stop here and there would be no
necessity for considering the further
allegations of the contestants.
The register has gone over the testi-
mony carefully. as well as the briefs
of law, submitted by the counsel for
the parties bearing upon the questions
OF insanity. and. after due and fun
consideration Of all the facts as testi-
fled to, we are Of the opinion that the
~
that Rachel Francis, at the time OF her
executing said will. possessed her usual
mental capacity. and was capable Of
making a will
The contestants allege a marriage be-
tween one John Williams and the testa-
trix in the year 1885 or 1886. They 90
not claim to be able, nor have they been
able, to prove the marriage except by
general reputation and coha bitation,
and in support Of this claim number
Of witnesses have been sworn whose
testimony Is somewhat conflicting in
many respects. yet 1t establishes such
an intimate relation between the testa-
trix and John Williams which might
justify the register In finding that they
We're married, were that the only testi-
mony In the case.
Testimony Was More Positive.
But the respondents deny with more
positive testimony OF number OF wit
nesses that the testatrix and John Will
liams were ever married, or that any
martial relations existed between them
and with uncontradicted testimony es-
tablish the fact that the testatrix was
married to one Thomas Watkins in the
year 1870, and that they lived together
as man and wife until some time in
the year 1875. when for some cause
they separated but we're never d.
vorced,, and said Watkins went to a
place in Patagonia. South America,
where he made his home and was living
there In good health In the year 1876.
This brings us to the question, was
Rachel Francis, at the time she exc
cuted her will, single woman. and
did she afterwards marry John Will
liams?
The fact Of her marriage with Thom-
as Watkins having been established