The herald., 1895-09-06
The Opinion of the Supreme
Court Handed Down
WIDOW AND WILL SUSTAINED
No Evidence OF Fraud Nor of Undue
Influence Shown
The Judgment and Order of the Lower Court
Denying New Trial Are Reversed.
An Appeal Case

The decision of the supreme court in
the case of Mary J. Herwick ct al.
plaintiffs and respondents, VS.. Maria NJ
Langford, defendant and appellant. was
received at the office of the clerk in this
city for filing yesterday.
This suit is what was generally known
as the Langford will case and came before
the supreme court on appeal by Maria M.
Langford. widow of Charles e. Ldngford,
deceased. and proponent in the lower
court of his last will, from a judgment
denying probate Of said will, and from
an order denying her motion for new
trial. The probate of the will was con-
tested by children OF deoedent by Il form er
wife upon the ground that he was ment-
ally incompetent to make q WILL and that
it was procured to be made by the fraud.
and also by the undue influence of appel
liant. In answer to interrogations pro-
pounded by the jury they found that at
the time of the execution of the Will, and
also to the time of the execution of a cer-
tain codicil, the decedent vas OF sound
and disposing mind and memory, but that
it was procured by the fraud and also by
the undue influence of the appellant.
The opoinion, which was written by
Justice Mcfarland and concurred in by
Justices Temple and HeDshaw, says
THE finding of fraud may be dismissed
with the remark that there is no evidence
to support 1t. The alleged fraud was that
the appellant falsely and fraudulently
represented to the decedent that the coy
testants cared nothing for him; had no
love for him, and only wanted his money.
Thre is nothing in the evidence to sup
Tort these averments: AS to the finding
of undue influence, the contention of APP
pellant is that there is no evidence suff-
cient to justify it. and that the court
committed material and reversible errors
in rulings upon the admissbiity of evil
dence on that issue: and we think that
both contentious must be sustained.
1.-The contention of respondents, when
thoroughly sifted. seems to be about
this: that there is evidence to the point
that appellant had general influence
over the deceased which ought to be
classed as undue and that therefore,
although when he made his will, under
the circumstances above stated, he was
apparently free to act as he pleased, yet
IT must be inferred that this general in
fiuence of appellant accompanied him,
subverting his volition ana coercing him
to act against his real wishes. 10 main
tain such strained and difficult theory
would require evidence very different
from that presented in the record.
IbohihE OuSii tuc III llilS
case we see no evidence at all sufficient
to warrant jury in annullne the solemn
act by which the decedent executed his
will. and republished it in the codicil.
If the law is to be changed, and the right
of dispcsing of ones property bv will. the
policy OF which has been sanctioned by
the wisdom and experience of many gen.
eratlons OF men. is to be taken away, that
result must be effected by the legislative
department of the government. AS the
law now Stands, that right cannot be
frittered away after the death of the tes-
tator according to the tsses and notions
Of others. 1t is quite likely that in the
case at bar the provisions of the will did
not meet with the approval of the inrors;
but their approval was not necessary.
The Judgment and order denying new
trial are reversed
The trial of the case IN the lower court
attracted much attention especially in
Pasadena, where Mr.. Langford lived for
some years previous to his death and
where the contested will was made.