The herald., 1897-06-20
BRIDGET WILSON'S WILL
A Testator Has the Right to Make an
Unjust or Even a Cruel Will

OAJAob Va - 6v0AA y ~ oS& " 50
The opinion of the supreme court in
the noted case of the estate Of Bridget
Wilson, deceased, John Wilson, ct al.
respondents, We. John McConnachie ct
AL, appellants, arrived from the north
yesterday. =, tf
The appeal was taken from Judge
Clark's department by the proponents
of the will of Bridget Wilson, deceased,
which was probated on May 8, 1893, from
judgment vacating the probate and
from an order. denying proponents mo-
ton for a new trial.
When tried in the lower court the
case attracted more than ordinary at
tention on account of the large interests
involved, large array of legal talent
being retained on either side.
Bridget Wilson died on March IA. 1893
at Los Angeles, and left will dated
February 27, 1898, and, a codicil dated
March II, 1898. These two instruments
were admitted to probate as constitut-
ing the last will and testament of the
deceased. She left no children or lineal
descendants, and John Wilson, her hus-
band. was her only legal heir. BY the
terms of the will $1,000 was left to Charles
Mcmahon, the residue of the estate be-
ing left to Alicia Mcmahon. A variety
of bequests were made to charitable in
stitutions. and the husband was left $50
per month. BY the codicil she revoked
the gifts to both Charles and Alicia Nc
Mahon and left the greater part of the
estate undisposed of, so that it would
go to the husband, as her legal heir.
John Wilson fled a written contest
to to1, :, a VI oII ,.ao
sons the will had not been properly
executed. He further alleged that at
the time Of the execution of both will
and codlcil the deceased was not of
sound mind or competent to make a
will, and also that they were obtained
by the undue influence of John McConna-
chic, hc being the agent of the deceased.
and was continually poisoning the
mind Of Bridget Wilson against the con-
testant by reporting to her false and
scandalous reports" At the same time.
the AfcMahons filed contest directed
against the codicil alone. averring that
at the time the codicil was made the
deceased was mentally incompetent, and
that it was made by the undue infiu-
ence and fraud of McConnachie and
Michael Curran and his wife, Mary Cur
ran. n
The contest Of John Wilson was on
the theory that the deceased was of un-
sound mind and was improperly inf1u-
enced to make will and also that at the
time the codicil was made, while thc
theory of the McMahons was that she
was competent and free from influence
on February 27, but was incompetent
and improperly influenced twelve days
afterward, when the codicil was made
To complicate the matter further, Will
son filed an answer to the McMahons
contest, denying all of it's allegations.
In the special verdict rendered the ver-
dict was in favor of the proponents on
all points touching the signing of the
will and codicil; also, that at the
execution Of both instruments the de-
ceased was not of sound mind and that
undue influence had been brought to
bear.
THE real question in the case" says
the supreme court, "is whether or not
there was evidence sufficient to justify
the findings that at the time of the exc
cution of the will and the codicil the
deceased was not mentally competent
to make a will, and we are satisfied that
the question should be answered In the
negative"
Proceeding to analyze the testimony,
the court holds thai there was ample
evidence to show that deceased was
very bright, It very illiterate. woman.
and though inclined to indulgence in
a