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

i'S' Out II does not work an estoppel
upoii inc proponents. r. S. CHAP. g. Sec.
-o' recognizes this principle and provides
"neil person over 4 years Of age is
'.'''i guardianship, he is incapable Of
''pos4hs Oh his property otherwise than
~ i'' last Will" Upon this contention
contestants must fail, rs the eVi-
ieid'ihS to the mental condition OF
49, N'''hoier On the 9th day of August,
i-' Gnu winch has led us to conclude on
'hIS particular evidence that he was on
.ii''' uay OF disnosing mind, has in no way
peeh impaired by the mere fact that sew
eral months earlier the testator was
placed under legal guardianship.
me next two groups of evidence, that
cf the neighbors and friends of Mr..
handler. and of the medical experts. will
he considered upon the same proposition.
rahleiE: DO they show that the mind of
MI. Chandler before and after August
''i'''N' iad approached sucn state of de-
cay tha'' notwithstanding the evidence
Oh th"sc who observed hum personally
ana Witnessed, with their own eyes. his
appearance manner and conduct at the
execution OF the cOtiicil, the inference
must be drawn that he was upon that
DAY OF unSound mind, il the legal sense,
Notwithstanding his apparent mental ca
pacity?
First we will consider the testimony Of
the neiShb""s and friends, of them there
are upwards of 120.
That Mr.. Chambers mInG was in pre-
carious condition on August 9th, nobody
disputes. That he was forgctful and at
ll1nes daZed, and ut all times for several
months prior thereto partially incapac:-
lated, nobody denies. But there was a
line somewhere between the beginning
and the end of the malady which finally
carried him Off. where he passed from
the possession of sound to that of an
unsound mind, as this term is defined i'll
law. The question is, whether in the
progress of that disease, he had passed
that Inc on the 9th day of August. None
of those neiehbors and friends pretepd t.
have any personal knowledge of his men
tai condition on that particular day.
That. during all the period covered by
their testimony up to and beyond August
ninth, he did not have lucid intervals for
a longer or shorter period. does not APP
pear from 4 single witness. That he did
have such an interval on August ninth.
WllHcut Il SlI!Slc Inclutfl OctuiIlDS Pli
that date to contradict it. affirmatively
appears from the testimony which We
have already reviewed We are therefore
still unable to say that the proof of his
condition as discovered by the testimony
of his neighbors and friends. prior and
subsequent to August ninth, shows such
Il mental condition on that date as to
outweigh the evidence already considered
in proof Of his legal sanity.
The next class OF evidence to which our
attention is called is that Of the mcdca.
experts. The testimony of the six wit
nesscs who testified under this head con-
tains more than eco pages of the report.
-Four eminent alienistS testify upon the
one side. upon long hypothetical Nues-
tons, purporting to contain facts and in
cidents in the life of Mr.. Chandler perth
nent to the issue. that on the ninth day
of August. he was Of unsound mind.
Three equally eminent are called upon
the other side. who uron Hypothetical
questions purportins to contain similar
facts and incidents. as unhesitatingly
testify that on the same Cay he was Of
sound and dsposing mind.
The fact and incidents contained in the
hypothetical questions put by the pro-
moments are objected to on the part OF
the contestant, on the ground of tn"
omission of facts which should he Consid
cred and Of containing statements which
hsou!d he omitted. TO the Hypothetical
questions put by the contestants. the pro-
Dnncnts interpose a similar objection To
distinguish the admissible from the in
admissible, for tn" purpose of detcrnlin-
ing whether the objections upon "lth"r
side are we'll founded, would he practical
" impossible. We shall therefore not
attempt to correct the hypothetical qucs-
tinns nor to modify the opinion express
ed by any of the eminent alicnists as
being based upon any alleged over state
mont or underSta temcnt of facts therein
contained. We do rot entertain the
slightest suspicion, if the Hypothetical
put by the contestants had been
50 changed as to have been absolutely
to the proponents. and thal
the same had been done with respect to
the questions Put by the proponents. that
anv one of the eminent specialists will
have changed his testimony, or the rea-
sons therefor, in the slightest degree.
Their testimony upon the one side and
inc OtIltT tlt.iiI ~ N''''' N'''
were inclined to testify in favor Of tn"
side which called them. In consi ierln%
their testimony we have endcavored TO
apply the test of consistency and reason
ablcness always having reference 70 the
other testimony in the case, which th"I:
opinions may tend to corroboratc or CON
tradict.
Judged by this criterion VIC find an in
hrrent weakness in the very foundation
,,ron which their conclusions rest. FirSr.
we discover that the experts called ny
the contestants have ma iC no proper Gus
tirction in giving their opinion nor could
th:y do 50 under the law. between mcdi-
cal and legal sanity. We may say here.
that this criticism does not apply tn the
three experts who testified that the tesla
tor, in their opinion, was of sound nina
on August ninth because medically
sound mind must necessarily include le-
gallv sound mird. On the ether hand the
opinion or the four witnesses. whose tes-
ti:roNv GiffcrCntiates the difference be
tween medically sound mind, and a 10
caIIv sound mind is entifl".l to weight. |
only when the other evidence shows that
it applies to legal unsounGness; because
n mind legally sound may be medically
IL Il ,,n1 Al