Evening journal., 1923-01-04
ISK COURT TO
SUSTAIN Will
Counsel Argues E. F. Sharp
ley Was of Testamentory
Capacity
JUDGES RESERVE
FINAL DECISION

After hearing argument for Elk
ours, Chief Justice Pennewin and
Fudge Harrington in Superior Court
yesterday afternoon, reserved de-
iision on the appeal Of the contest
nts OF the will from the decision
n Register of Wills Brown in the
batter OF the petition for a review
the last will and testament OF
s,lwood Frank Sharpley. deceased,
lated April %. 1920.
Mr.. Brown, several months ago.
ius,ained the win. The contestants
re; Howard 3. Springer. Elwood L.
pringer, Rebecca J. Bird and Mary
Jones.
Robert G.. Hartman, attorney for
he contestants, seeks to have the
-ourt frame an issue back TO the
Register of Willis with instructions
o have a jury decide whether or
lot Mr. Sharpley had testamentarY
apacity at the time he made his
win
William s. Hilles, David J. Rein
ardt and Frank L. Speakman, at
orneys for the propounders, vigor-
5usly argued in behalf Of Register
Browns decision holding the will TO
be valid.
Mr.. Hilles finished his argument
n behalf Of the prOpounders shortly
fter court convened.
Evidence showed, Mr.. Hilles said,
hat the first evidence OF delirium-
n Mr.. sharpley occurred on the
Wednesday following his being
AIKEN to a hospital and three days
after the making OF the will.
During the week following Mr..
harpley's being taken 10 the hos
pital Mrs. William T. Lyman and
per daughter. Mildred. sat twice a
lay with The patient and they no.
iced no change in his mental con-
iition until toward the end of the !
|veek, the attorney said. He dis /
|tounted the testimony Of Howard B. I
pringer that he had noticed evil !
ience Of a change In mentality OF /
harpley four DAYS prior TO the max, |
ng OF the will
Mr.. Hilles eaid that II was a mat
err OF regret TO him that Mr.. Har- ,
|nan took the attitude that he did
/ &c In his denomination OF Mr..
Lyman. Mr.. Lyman. the attorney
d. was not acting as attorney for
/ lGrpley but as a friend. Mr.. Hilles
Intended that the decedent's send
ne for Mr.. Lyman to draw his will
ras one of the best evidences that
was in his right mind in sending
Mr. Lyman. MS friend. Mr..
vnam. ne said. was dealing with
careful business man and drew up
7 efru
restions and just as II was read by
him 20 the testator.
Mr.. Hnles argued that the court
5 hould not overrule the Register OF
Wills and send the matter back to
him with instructions to frame an
sue and place it before a jury.
lIr Reinhsrdt followed Mr. Hlles
in argument on behalf Of the pro-
Founders. He termed Mr. Stubbs
a testamentary witness. as a pro
-ressive witness" referring TO ex-
tracts of testimony given by Mr..
-,uhhs before the Register.
Mr. Eeinhardt said that ne and Mr..
s7eakman had made an exhaustive
search but had been unable 10 find
case in which a non-eXpert wit
TOSS t0ulu lfSlIA as 10 the touu4tlou
NJ a person suffering from pneu-
uonia.
The testimony OF contestants wit
lesses as TO the condition OF Mr.,
;harpley day or so following the
zninK of the will in connection
with his condition on the day the
= n was made was assailed by Mr.
7einhardt. The attorney referred
o various cases TO sustain the pro-
founders case and took up different
Joints Of the testimony.
Mr.. Hartman, replying to the argu-
nent OF Mr. Hilles and Mr.. Rein
iardt, cited authorities in relation TO
estlmony as TO the physical condi-
ions OF a person subsequent to the
making Of will as relating to the
inc OF the making OF a will.