Norwich bulletin., 1921-06-15
JUDGE GnzsEE sUsrArNs
cHAs. F. GEEB's WILL

CAAb. IT. GELhS WILL
 Judge Gardiner Greene has sustained the will of the late Charles r. Gee- of Norwich Town in which an appeal from probate was taken by Byron A. Wight man and other. nephews of Mir. Gssr in an attempt to break the will on the grounds of mental incapaciay on the part of the testator and undue influence on the part of Mrs. Mary Welch, whom Mir. Geer married about a month before he died.
 The case was heard before Judge Greene recently, with Attorney Ednnund W Perkins representing. ths executr.x. and Attorney Arthur F. Libby for the appellants Mr. Geer left an estate of about ss,4o0. Judge Greene handed down his decision Tuesday as follows | This is an appeal from probate. in which the appellants seek to reverse the decree of the probate court sustaining the will of Charles F. Geer. The ap- pellats are nephews of the testator. and | the appellee his wife, married to him about week before the will was made. The grounds of appeal are. taa usual three, but, on the trial, there was TO claim that the will was not legally exc cuted, and the evidence establishes the fact that it was. n -i -i-..t -f.. Tho .appallee has also sustained the burden of proving that the testator was | mentally compentent to make his will
 No doubt there were periods. bosh m
 January and March. when his mental
 state was insufficient, but at and neal
 the dates of his marriage and the exc. cution of the will he was competent. The main question is whethe- Mrs Welch, afterwards Mrs. Geer, procured
 the will by undue influence.
 The parties each claim that the bur den of proof on this question Is cn tht other.
 Ordinarily, of course. the burden |,
 prove undue influence is on the part.
 attacking the will. but. in cases whe-i ] a certain kind of confidential relation
 chip exists, the burden shifts. Tn thi ] case, when the will vas made, the per ) son charged with undue influence wa ! testator's wife; but appellee's claim i ) that her undue influence was execute largely before she became his wife. when she was only a relative. distan } In blood, though near in person. Il Mrs. Welch, later Mrs. Geer, does aoi apparently, come within the class fc
 whom the burden shifts. She was neith , CT religious adviser. guardian, attor ney, physician, nor did she occupy q } clearly advantageous position of trust. l The evidence Is that she did rot med
  l However, even If the burden of proc
 were upon her. should be ooliged t ind upon the evidence that she ha
 disproved any undue influence. 11fluenC no doubt, she had. but she did not abus it. In a case of this sort, where un. : due influence is in question, ! goot < deal of weight may clearly be given 1 : the reasonableness of the testator's te.
 tementary provision with reference . his own interests as well as the interest of the different claimants on his oour z ty.
 . MT. Geer had been for years much l z want of a good wife. In the case of 1. man of his age and physical conditio' housekeeping and nursing form a lar. . part of the duties of a good wife, Mn Wefch, through a trial of number :. years, had proved herself competent a- . . acceptable in these respects, and was : pleasant companion.
 ,, II MT. Geer, in marrying her, d'd |! . best thing he could for himself. an |, In connection with marrying her. :. was bound to provied for her. It wou be hard to find that to influence a ma l to do what he ought to do for his ow
 | good is to unduly influence him. 2 But the evidence shows no exoessi' use of influence by Mrs. Welch. He U influence was good care. which l:adc' z him to propose marriage, and. in doi- V so, to recognize the fact that IL wou
 have been wise to have done 1t soonC The same proper influence whit smoothed the way to the ma-riags h; It's weight with him In the dL1positi of his property. It is quite possible tn Y the nephews would have been rcrnenibe |. ed, though the property was not lars u but their own imprudenoe in the co v servator matter offended the testatt and excluded them from the poss'b::I n of receiving a share of his properi Their dropping the conservator procee l. ings also tends to show that they al A thought that the testator was then cor ,u potent of attending to his own anaii L. Judgment Is rendered sustaining | validity of the will sd the decree
 the probate court.