Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1905-08-02

standpoint as medical practitioners.
that this man was not competent at
that time to dispose of his property;
he was not in a state of mind, owing
to long sickness and the influence Of
narcotic drugs, and the effect Of hy
podermic injections of narcotics. At
the time this will was executed Dr.
Smith testifes that the patient was be.
ing given AZ grain of morphine every
two hours, in addition TO hypodermic
injections, and d. Smith said positive.
ly that, in his opinion, a man under
those conditions is not competent &c
execute a will. just to quoae from DR.,
f. f. Smiths testimony he was asked
by the scrivener of the will about the
condition of the patient, and he shrug
ged his shoulders, because he said it
was ridiculous to entertain the idea
that this man, Buren, would be compe
tent TO make a will to dispose Of his
property at that time. The court has
read, so far as he was able, the author
tiles which have been cited, and il
seems to be god law certainly that p
practicing physician, who had daily in.
tercourse with the patient, and who
was necessarily required to examine
into the mental condition of the man as
well as his physical condition is para.
mount to that of a casual visitor at the |
bedside of the patient. believe that to !
be good law. DR.. f. E. Smith is pos
tive in his testimony, and so also is
DR.. j. N. Smith, another reputable ply
sician practicing in this community |
There is no testimony to lessen the
weight of the evidence Of these physi-
clans, and it is presumed they stand
high in their profession, and are com
petent to pass upon the mental condi.
ion and the physical condition Of the
deceased. There is but very little tes.
imony to show to the contraryj there
s only the testimony of a lady TO whom
le had spoken prior TO his sick spell, to
he effect that he wanted to make o
will and dispose Of his property, anj
sked this woman not to say anything
ohis son and daughter. There is no
estimony to indicate what his inten-
ions were at that time, no testimony
hat he had any i'll feeling towards his
on, or that he had any special prefer
nee for his daughter. Now there is
ome testimony that shows that his son
ad never received any part Of the es.
ate prior to his fathers death. lie
ad business relations with his father,
ut he testified that he and another
ian bought out the business; but that
'ould make no difference now, for the
uestion is whether or not he was com.
etent TO make a will. While believe
lat a man would be justified in dispos.
x Of his property as he wished, If he
nd full mental capacity, that he couil
it'll his own property that he had ac.
lmulated do as he pleased, but tho
iestion is whether or not this man,
uren, only six days before his death
! his deathbed from the result of an
durable disease, and that disease, as
e testimony shows, one that has a
ndency to affect the mental faculties
ho was under the inhuence-o drugs
deaden his sensibilities and render -
m mentally incompetent and insensi 4
e of the surroundings, and TO pre-, :.
mt him from intelligently disposing
his property, and another thing is :,
at the man was said to be deaf, but =,
ere was no proof that he did not hear
G will read TO him; the court believes :
at the will was read to him, and he
rs made 10 understand so far as the
rivenor was able TO make him un. @.
rstand. Now, there is the evidence
DR.. j. N. Smith and DIR. f. f. Smith
,th gave positive testimony that he
As not in such a condition as he
ould be to make a will, and the court
id a great deal of attention and re,
eet to the testimony Of DR.. Cusick and
:. Williamson. know it is claimed -
at DIR. Cusick and DR.. Williamson did -
/ see the patient at the time the will 'is
rs executed, but Drs. Williamson aud -
isiek are both experts on such dis - ="
ses, and being competent 10 testify
least on such diseases testify thai -
ON the diagnosis of this case, made ."
DIR. f. f. Smith and DR.. J. n. Smith. ,u
10 were present particularly DR. -
ank +. Smith, who had charge Of 'O
N, and had been his physician for a -"
ar or more) they say that he was not
a condition 10 have made a will in
ligently, and not in his right mind, We
w, it is true that DR.. Byrd and DR. on
Mary were called, but their testi br
my was more upon theoretical di bo
nosis of the case. DR.. Byrd testified an