Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM JONES, Deceased; LAURA A. BAKER, as Guardian of Lester William Jones, Contestant and Respondent; CHARLES G. JONES, Proponent and Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1913-08-27
Citations: 166 Cal. 778
Docket Number: Sac. No. 2140
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM JONES, Deceased. LAURA A. BAKER, as Guardian of Lester William Jones, Contestant and Respondent; CHARLES G. JONES, Proponent and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 166
Pages: 778–778

Head Matter:
[Sac. No. 2140.
Department One.
August 27, 1913.]
In the Matter of the Estate of WILLIAM JONES, Deceased. LAURA A. BAKER, as Guardian of Lester William Jones, Contestant and Respondent; CHARLES G. JONES, Proponent and Appellant.
Estate of Deceased Person—Contest of Will—Undue Influence— Adoption of Illegitimate Child.—The order denying a motion for a new trial is affirmed on the authority of Estate of Jones, ante, p. 108.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County refusing a new trial. E. N. Rector, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion in the case of Estate of Jones, ante, p. 108.
John Ralph Wilson, J. K. Law, and D. M. Young, for Appellant.
F. G. Ostrander, J. J. Griffin, and Henry Brickley, for Respondent.

Opinion:
SHAW, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a new trial, after an order revoking the probate of the will of William Jones, deceased. All the questions involved in this appeal were involved and were presented on the appeal from the said order of revocation, Estate of Jones, (Sac. No. 2032), ante, p. 108, [135 Pac. 288]. In the opinion this day filed in that case these questions were discussed and decided, and the order of revocation was thereupon affirmed. The parties have stipulated that this appeal may be submitted and decided upon the briefs filed in that case, and the case has been submitted accordingly. No further discussion is necessary here, since the facts are the same as in the other case.
The order denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed.
Angellotti, J., and Sloss, J. concurred.