Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-11-13
WILL SUSTAINED.
Continued from Page One.)

! UectdSeu bIOtIleF AluTeW u.
if she is still living at time of my de-
cease. one tenth part of all my said
estate in remembrance of her continual
act of kindness toward me during the
many years, l have made my home IN
| her family.
Third: l give and bequeath unto
Sara Archer Chandler. child of my
nephew Andrew c. the sum of five
hundred dollars, as a token of my re-
gard for her, she having received her
name at my suggestion and request.
Fourth: If either of the persons
named in this codicil as devisees and
/ legatees is not living at the time of my
deceaSe | give. devise and bequeath the
share and portion Of my estate which
! would be received by such one il then
alive to the children of the deceased
legatee, in equal shares and portions
heirs and assigns forever
/ Fifth: | hereby confirm the APP
pointment of Lyman NJ. Cousens and
! Andrew c. Chandler as executors of
my will, and this codicil thereto, and
revoke the appointment of John II
Card as such executor. and in his place
and stead I nominate and appoint John
w True of New Gloucester as one of
the executors thereof, and l request
and direct that 10 bond be required of
! him in that capacity by the judge OF
probate having jurisdiction of my
1 estate
! sixth: l hereby revoke and annul
all wills by me at any time made and
executed, excepting the will first men
toned herein"
solomon Ii. Chandler died on the
! 31st day of December, 1903. ON the
22d day of January 1904. his will was
presented for probate. This petition
was resisted by the American Board
but upon full hearing. the probate court
entered decree approving and allow
ing the will of 1896 and the codicils
thereto attached. From this decree the
American Board appealed filing II
reasons therefor.
! This case. including briefs and in
deXes contains about 1000 printed
pages.
Notwithstanding this vOluminous
testimony and the large sum involved.
yet, in the propositions of law and fact
governing this consideration this pro-
ceeding may be resolved into the or
binary will case. presenting only the
usual questions raised in such con-
tests and must be decided upon its own
peculiar circumstances and facts.
The appellants filed II reasons of
appeal but in their brief they say the
issues raised by these separate reasons
of appel will all be considered in ar
gument under the general subdivisions
Of tcstamentary capacity undue in
fiuence and fraud We adopt this
classification.
Therefore the first and perhaps the
most important question for our deter
mination is. did Solomon II. Chandler
on the ninth day of August. 1902
possess such soundness Of mind, as, in
contemplation of the law, enabled him
: to make a valid disposition of his
estate by will? At this time our
statute provided that "a person of
sound mind and of the age of Il years
may dispose of his real and personal
/ estate by will" There is no exception
or qualification to this requirement
that person must be of sound mind
to make valid will. The burden rests
upon the proponents to affirmatively
prove it. In probating q will the sanity
of tn" testator must be proved and it
is not to be presumed.
But the word sanity is used in its
legal and not its medical sense.
, "Etymologically, insanity signifies un-
soundness. Lexically it signifies I'M
S"undncss of mind. or arrangement of
the intellect. In law, every mind is
sound that can reason and will intcli-
gently, in the particular transaction
being considered; and every mind is
unsound or insane that cannot SO rea-
son and will. The law investigates
no further" This definition clearly
diferentiates the sound from the I'M
sound mind. in the legal sense.
"A disposing mind involves the ex-
ercise of so much mind and memory
as would enable Il person to transact
common and simple kinds of business
with that intelligence which belongs
To the weakest class of sound minds:
and disposng memory exists when
one can recall the general nature con-
ditlon ana extent Of his property and
ms relation to those to whom he gives
and also to those from whom he ex-
rludeS his bounty. But mere intellect
uai fcebleneSS must be distinguished
from unsoundnesS of mind The re-
qurcmentS of a Sound and disposine
nina does not imply that the powers
of the mind may not have been weak
ened or impaired by old age or bodily
disease"
Under these legal principles arises
a pure question Of fact upon the first
proposition. which it is incumbent M
on the proponents or appelIeeS in the
1lfst instance to prove. namely. that
IN" teStator on the ninth day Of Au-
gust. not the eighth nor tenth nor any
other day. was possessed of testament
tary capacity. Under our statutes the
question of age being eliminated. the
only standard as to such capacity is
whether the testator was Of sound
mind" as this phrase is used in its fix
ed legal meaning
In assuming the burden Of proof. up
on this proposition, which requires on
ly a preponderance of the evidence as
IN civil actions. the proponents of the
VIII and codicil of 1902 present first, as
evidence of the testamentary capacitv.
OF the testator. the internal proof fur