Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-02-03
Made a NEW RTLING.


The court reversed the Circuit Court Of
Orange county in the case Of Whitelaw' s
Administrator VS.. Whitelaw's Admins
traitor. and made n new ruling regarding
the admission Of evidence I'm the form Of
admission. This was an issue TO detN-
mine whether "a writing prObated as the
last will and testament OF Mrs. Mary
Whitelaw was genuine. Bills OF eXcep-
lions were taken upon the trial TO the
action Of the Court in admitting as eW-
dence the nuncupative will Of the hus-
,ond If Mrs Mary Whitelaw; a deed from
Elizabeth Yager. their daughter, TO her
brothers of all the interest which she
took under her fathers viii; a deed from
J. ID. Whitelaw to Il. ID. Whitelaw, sons
Of Mrs. Mary Whitelaw, by which the
grantOr conveyed all the interests ac-
quired under his fathers will, and from
his sister: a deed from b. r. Whitelaw
10 Mrs Wager. by which was conveyed
a tract Of land acquired under his father 3
will. and by deed from his brother and
sister and six judgments confessed by
Mrs Wager I'm favor Of her brother, u. X.
yVhiteIaw. This evidence was offered by
y. r.. Whitelaw. and those who claim
under him to sustain their contention
that at the time Mrs. Whitelaw made
her will she was mentally unsound, ana
that the will was obtained by Improper
influences.
The opinion. written by Judge Buch-
anan. holds that if the party Offering the
IMAGINATIVE will had shown that MIS-.
yVbiteiaw the validity Of whose VIII s
attacked. had declared her intention
nrior TO the execution of her will, OF dis
posing Of her property i'm accordance
with the wishes Of her husband, as u's-
closed i'm his will. II would have been al
n,issible as evidence tending 10 snow she
had been improperly Influenced IN IilahIls
"a will disposing of 1t in dliIeerht man
ner. Mrs. Whitelaw. was not par -
any Of the deeds or judgments, ana the
Co,,rt holds there was nothing i'm them
which could I'm the most remote uesIee
shed light upon the issue
THE NEW QUESTION DECIDED.
The question presented by the second
buI Of exceptions is whether upon AN
issue Of devisavit vel non the legatee or
devisee who is attacking the validity OF
81, will can introduce as evidence the au-
infections of Il fellow-legatee or deFlste'
tending TO impeach il where there are
other leqatees or devisees interested I'D
sustaining the will. This question We
never before passed upon by the y"
ginia Supreme Court
The court holds that though the au-
missions of party to the record are
generally lttflNaUlt t1tit4t'N ~
where there are several parties on 'ne
same side the admissions OF one are NOT
admitted to affect the other, VINO may
bappen 10 be joined with him unless
there is some joint interest or priVity III
design between them, although the au-
missions may I'm proper cases be receive"
against the person who made them
The court holds that in case OF the
character of the one under consideration
where the validity of a whole VIII Is al-
tacked. and il must either stand or ran
as n whole the admission OF Mrs. wager
tending to show want of mental ca
nacitv on the part of the testatriX, OF
the use of improper influence must OIL
necessity affect her daughters VINO are
attempting. as well as herself to sustain
the will. o-o,,,aoa from,
such admissions must be exciuded rom
+be iurv which is the only way TO pro-
tect them from the influence of such ad-
missions. III, Ill, J.,
The party attacking the viii VIII be
olIoyed TO introduce only such evidence
as will be competent against all the
narties attacking the validity OF the
THE court holds. therefore, that the
lower court erred I'm admitting the evil