Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-05-03
LAW COURT DECISION.
Exceptions Sustained In the Case oil
LeProhon VS.. Greene Estate.

The following rescript in a York county
case was received Wednesday by Clerk
Of Courts Sweet:
York county: Elizabeth VI. T.cProhon,
appellant, from decree Of judE" of pro
bate, in estate Of Ellen NJ. Greene. de-
ceased.
RcScript SDea". j.
This is an appeal from n deere" Of tho
Judge Of probate refusing II allow an IN
S;ru!ncnt as the last VIII and testament
Of Ellen NJ Greene. deceased. Ellen NJ
Greene, an aged ana unmalrG woman
of Sac1, mot her death ~ an accident in
her home. the night before Christmas.
\. y. 1904. Her only relative in Saco at
thu tine was Charles Frederick Greene.
n brother, who lived on North sire I. She
left as h"r next of kin ana 10 '"S-lt-
uw, one brother, Charles Frederick
Greene, and Il large number Of n"pheWs
ana ricces. one Of whom is Elizabeth Nj.
LcI'rOhon, the original appellant i'll this
case.
From the questions submitted it is CYL
dent that the issue Of fact presented r.
the jury was whether the mutildtion "
the will WAS the act of the trst2triX hrT-
self or agent, or Was done by some OH
cr person subsequent To her dcccaSc.
The case cones here on exceptions ana
motion. The first exc, ptioE II lat'' to tn
exclusion Of the testimony OF james @.
Bradbury Of Saco IN attorney at law,
with reference 10 an Interview watch he
| hal with the testatriX of the following
| tenor:
In the fall Of 1903. a. | was going down
| by her house from dinner. She was out III
| the gate and stopped me and asked me
| in. l went in and she asked me some
luesti0ns about tie matters Of the real
estate and then she asked me what |
thought was the best way to revoke Il
| will.
| 1 told her that was a practical ques-
| ton, that any actual destruction of the
will was sufficient. ! told her that some
| times PEOPLE burned such papers. she
| asked me if cutting the name from q
| will vas n destruction Or revocation OF
the will, and L told her if the testator
cut the name knowingly from the will
that that was a destruction of the WILL
land then I added that, while as matter
Of law it was not necessary, still II !
was going to mutilatc n will that L had
| made myself that in order to make II
lnerfoctlv clear | should take and make
q little memorandum on some bank
place on the will, giving the date, ana
Istating that on such date / destroyed the
Twill by cutting my name out OF IL, anu
lthcn whatsoever hands it came into would
know. She said she wanted to ask the
ICmcstion, she liked to preserve all her
lpapcrs, whether they amounted to any
lthing or not. This was substantially
what She said.
O. Then, as I understand 1t, the SUD
lstance of that conversation was the cut
ling out of the name, you instructed h'r,
. lwoull cancel a will, and that you your
self. rs a matter of caution, would en-
dorse on it in writing, hut You dld NOT
Instruct her that it was necessary?
a. no. sir.
| This testimony If admissible was I'M
inortant and material. The ground OF It's
exclusion was that the interview was III
ire nature Of a privileged comrnn!ch-
,iun or the decedent to Mr.. Bradbury as
an attorney.
Hold. If the interview between the de-
Icedcnt and MIR. Bradbury should be htlo
IA come within the rule Of privileged
communications, were the decedent Nv
ING. it would still be admissible under
) mo nrncirlcs of law governing the rlsh'
Of waiver by the personal representative
or heir.
Exceptions sustained.