Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-11-30
DEATH BED WILL IS
HELD TO Be INVALID
BY SUPREME COURT
Aged Patient Signed DOcu-
ment Disinheriting Sisters
While In a StupOr

The supreme court held that will
made in the evening by man 81
years Of age VINO died the next morn
ing was not valid as it plainly inlicat-
ed that the testator was not Of sound
mind and body. The evidence in the
case further showed that the old man,
Thomas Huffman, was in semi-con-
scious condition when the will was
made and that he was unable to sign
his name and the witnesses placed a
pencil in his fingers and guided his
nand while he placed his signature to
the document. After the effort he
lapsed into unconsciousness and had to
be aroused with a stimulant while the
will was read to him. The opinion
was written by Justice Mcbride in the
case of Mary H. Darby, contestant and
appellant against Albert Hindman ana
his heirs. The case was appealed from
the decision of Judge Gustav Anderson
of Baker county, and the opinion of
Justice Mcbride reverses the judgment
of the circuit court.
1t appears tnat Thomas Huffman
wandered into Huntington September
| 10, 1913 literally on his last legs ana
was rushed to a private hospital con-
Quoted by one DR.. Stannard. He was
carried to bed and there he made his
will giving property valued at from
$4,000 to 100000 to Albert Hindman
and disinheriting Mary H. Darby and
Margaret j. Gilbert, two sisters of the
aged man in the east. Hindman was
neighbor of Huffman and the
only neirs of the old man were his
sisters. The will was made in the
evening and the next morning the old
man died. The two witnesses to the
will signed the following statemenn
which was written at the bottom of
the will: "We hereby agree not to
say anything about this until after the
death of the testator.'
The will was admitted to probate by
the county court where the sisters pro
tested but the court held the will valid.
The case was appealed to the circuit
court where the will was again held
valid and then carried to the supreme
court and the case was argued in Pen
dleton.
This afternoon the arguments were
heard in the Portland Jitney ease
which is contest to test the validity
of the ordinance passed by the city
council. o. W. Lafferty is appearing
for tine iitney men. The arguments will
also be heard today in the matter of
the ordinance which was passed by the
Portland city council assessing the
Portland Railway, Light and Power
company 3 per cent on the gross in
come of the company { r taxes In
both of the cases in which the city of
Portland is interested, w. r. LaRoche,
| II. A. Davey and II. M. Tomlinson are
appearing for the city and 7. B. Hol-
man and w. w. Cotton are represent
ing the corporations.
The following are the opinions hand
ed down bv the supreme court today:
Metzler- Hegsted Lumber company VS.
Farmers Union Warehouse & Mercan-
tile company. appellant, appealed from
| Union county, suit for money, opinion
! by Justice Burnett, Circuit Judge
Knowles JUDGMENT for plaintiff af-
firmed
| Effie L. YtrN, administrators Of the
estate of James York, VS.. James York,
appellant, appealed from Baker coun-
ty, suit for partnership accounting,
opinion b. Justice Bean, Circuit Judge
Knowles judgment for the plaintiff
affirmed.
G.. II. Rush VS.. School District No. 5,
of Union county, appellant, involving
bond issue, opinion by Justice Ben
son, Circuit Judge Knowles Judgment
for plaintiff affirmed.
In the matter of the estate of Mary
A. Orr, deceased, Margaret Humason,
appellant, VS.. Augustus B. p. Orr, ap-
pealed from NTultnomah county, motion
to dismiss appeal denied, opinion by
Justice Harris.