Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-11-13

ing expressed any opinion at all as t
legal unsoundncss. Unless then it APP
pears from some source that these opin-
ions included legal unsoundncss, they ar,
of but little value. Ana three Of the con
tcStantS experts expressly declare tina,
their opinions include only medical sani-
their opinions include only medical SAM
ty. Another Fundamental weakness IN
the testimony of the experts OF the CON
teStantS is that their testimony uotS not
apply to the condition of the actual MIR
| Chandler, but to Il Hypothetical man
who. We conceive. is supposed to repre-
sent Mr.. Chandler in the Hypothetical
questions. lr. Jelly says. that although
he read the evidence and dopositons ana
heard the testimony. for several days yet
as his opinion depended upon the truth
Of the hypothetical questions. lie coui,
have given his opinion Just exactly as
well by reading the Hypothetical question
as by hearing the evidence" In other
words he admits that if the Hypothetical
questions were wrong his opinion was
wrong. That the hypothetical questions
upon both sides are erroneous in the r.
h"arsal of facts is manifest from a cas-
ual reading. The statements upon the
different sides differ materially. and it
follows as corroary that one. the other
or both must he wrong. The trut! is. all
are wrong. They are made Up from 4
preiudced view and for a Predetermined
purpose. The ordinary rul" Of law with
reference to the effect of interest upon
crcdibilty should be here applied with
special force. Such opinion evidence pre-
find a Judgment affecting important in
tcrcSt. These expert opinions illustrate
not only how dangerous but how nm
fortunate that men Of great knowledge.
experience and skill. should array them
selves upon different sides Of the same
proposition which can nave but one So
luton in trutl? and come to absolutely
contrary conclusions. 1t Is evident that
such testimony is not only worthless but
inSiGious and dangerous. Tor it is impOs-
si,le for the layman i'll tho analysis Of
such testimony to distinguish the tru :
from the untrue. If the untrue is acted
upon. injustice must follow.
Our conclusion already arrived at with
respect to the legal sanity of the testa-
tor upon August ninth is not in any way
modified by the testimony of the expert
witnesses.
But the contestants so further and as
sert that even if the court arrives at the
conclusion that Mr.. Chandler was in the
possession IF Documentary capacity on
the ninth day of August the codicil
should still lie ovrrthrown because Of the
exercise of undue influence in inducing
the tcstator to make il. We arc unable
to find anything in the evidence that cs-
tabishes the truth of this proposition.
II is our duty to decide the case upon
the evidence and not upon inucndo or
rhetoric. While the question Of fraud
and undue influence are fully discussed
I'm the opinion we will at this time takn
only the space to say for the reasons
OF tending to prove a conspiracy and thu
preparation of 2 fraud. conciusively
proves the contrary. Our final determi
nation upon all the contention of fact is
that the codicil repu3lshed the will Of
1896. and the codicil thereto, which became
part thereof. and that said will and
codicil are valid instruments represent
ing the last will and testament of the
testator. Solomon III. Chandler.
Appeal dismissed Decree below. that
the instrument purporting to be the last
will and testament dated March 10, A. D.
1895. Of Solomon ri. Chandler, late of New
Gloucester in the county of Cumberland.
decreased and codicils thereto. dated
August II. 1896 and August .. 1902. may
he nroved and allowed, affirmed, and case