Year: 1871

Ephraim Taylor talked with Cramer In 1867


about the guardian, and says II thought him


capable OF understanding business affairs.
Doolttle O. Simmons SAYS he saw HIM every
month in 1867 talked with him about the guar


dian affairs talked about the wheat We were
| binding after the cradle in the summer OF 1867
aud about such things as working men usually
talk about, and observed no change in his men,
tai condition, and thinks he was capable of
managing his own affairs then.


Levi Dowd knew him; judged Of his mental
capacity from conversations had with him
deemed hum capable Of managing his affairs.
John Meachem knew him we'll; relates bus
iness transaction and the payment of money
to him by Oramer in 1867 thinks he was capa-


BILE OF managing his business affairs.
! Mrs. Steadman, wife OF the proponent, and
sister OF the deceased, testified very fully on
! the points referred to- confirming the propon-
I ent's other witnesses


| Most OF the witnesses related transactions
and occurrences had with the deceased, tnat
served to tx their judgment as to Cramer's
mental capacity which need not be repeated
| here.


| 1t Is probable that change came over the
| the mind OF the deceased as he perceived the
disease from which six others of the family
I had suffe cred down to the day OF their death,


fasten upon himself. That he was cast down


and appeared ashamed OF his personal appear


ance, and that many persons hesltated to talk


with him for fear OF hurting his feelings, and


that sense OF pity and compassion actuated


many who would treat HIM and speak of HIM
| accordingly.


But the prima facie case of the proponents


shows Cramer to have been Of sound mind the


11th Of May. 1867 and soundness OF mind is
| the normal condition OF man-that IS to say,
| there is that pre-occupaton or the ground as
| implies soundness OF mind in q man until suf-
| ticlent evidence is adduced against it. In this
case, the fact that he afflicted with an incur
| able and hereditary disease from which num-
| ber OF his own biood-father, brother. and Sis
| ter sutfered-and as it ls alleged, from which
one brother shot himself, one was drowned In
| a canal and one at least died fully demented-
and the fact that at the time of the execution
| OF this will he was under guardianship, do not
| afford OF themselves satisfaction to my mind


that he was then incapable of making a valid
wlll-ior | can readily conceive that all that
may exist, and he yet be of sound mind. The
first is cause which it is claimed will de-
| ment the human mind but must be satls-
| fed IN this case that it had actually done so-
| The other is a human judgment rendered in
another proceeding and at another time. 1t
may have been erroneous or subsequently the
| man may have become lucid. Other proof is
required directly pertinent to Cramers case,
perhaps not as much nor as preponderating
but certainly as satisfactory as would be re-
quired were he not 80 circumstanced Nor do
treat these facts lightly 1 give them a great
deal Of weight especially the fact that he was
under guardianship, and that he made his will
so shortly after the appointment of the guar
dian. The learning and discrimination of the
judge who ordered the guardianship, of itself
rendered it signlfcant---though must add not
conclusive on the question-and that | can re-
ceive it only as evidence. to be weighed with
the other evidence in the case.


Undue influence, it is claimed by the con-
testants, is shown by the several series of acts
showing purpose on the part of Morris Stead
man to use or impose upon the testator, to get
the title to his property and they point to the
deed, life lease, etc., as evidence OF it.. It ls
true Steadman appears to have desired the
title to Cramers land, but only on the ground
Of compensation therefor. His acts have all
along, 1t appears, been accompanied with the
counter obligation to care for, feed, clothe-in
short, TO support Cramer therefor during life.
To prevent his property from running to waste
and Cramer becoming, by reason Of his infirm-


ty, public charge, guardian was appointed
for him. But q guardian, on the property's
being exhausted would turn his ward over to
the public to be thenceforth supported by tar.
Steadmans plan would prevent Cramer from
becoming at all public charge. Therefore
there Appeals nothing wrong IN Steadman's
acts touching the conveyances referred to-
Bennett, whose wife is one of the contestants,
and now the only one, since GATHERINGS death,
swears he took care OF William Cramer, brother
of Roln, for his property.


The question is, Is this instrument the will
Of the testator, or OF some other person?
Does there appear from the evidence to have
been brought upon Cramer such a pressure
over importantly in the making OF this instru-
ment that he was too weak to resist {? Does it
appear that the will of another became the
dominant controlling power In the making of
the instrument? These questions must be
answered by the evidence in the case. Except
ing the evidence already referred to the con-
testt nts offer nothing touching this point yet
it should be critically examined. Cramer's
mother testifes that he could not be easily per-
suaded; that he desired to make his home WITH
his brother-in-law, Steadman, and desired to
pay him therefor out OF his property. Several
other witnesses testify directly to the same
effect.


Ralph Webster talking with Cramer in the
spring Of 1867, testlfes to Cramers saying he
had got his property fixed now to suit him;
and Charles Hazeton says that he saw Cramer
about two weeks after the guardian was ap-
pointed, and in conversation he had with him
Cramer said, in answer to my saying to hum
that they had ripped up what he had done in
deciding said yes, but there ls one remedy
can make my will. They have appointed
guardian, but have not taken my property away
from me.


From this review of the evidence it seems to
me only one confusion eau be drawn and that
is that in May, 1867, Rollin Cramer was capa-
BILE Of knowing, tersely speaking, what he was
about, and tnat at the time OF the execution of
the will he knew he was taking such steps as
would, were his intentions carried out after his
death, vest the title of all his property in
Steadman, the proponent.


Whether the making the will and the dispo-
stion he did Of his property thereby, were un-
der the circumstances wise and just, and what
should have been done, are not, / modestly
suggest, questions for courts or jures. For
were to determine that, L might be doing,
after the death of the testator, just what the
courts have 30 often and 80 sharply lnveighed
against VIZ: Substituting my mind for that Of
the testators in the disposition OF his property.
can only determine under the provisions Of
statutes tho validity Of the proposed instrument.
That done my duty is fulfilled.


And the evidence touching the premises be-
ing maturely considered, it satisfactory appears
that Rolin Cramer is dead, and died resident
of this county, and that in his lifetime he did
make and execute his last will and testament,
the original Of which has been since his death
lost and destroyed. and which he did not re-
woke, and that the paper annexed to the petit
ton herelnbefore set forth is in substance a
copy thereof and that said copy OF said will
ought to be allowed and approved, according to
the prayer Of said petitioner.


It is therefore ordered, adiudged and decreed
by this Court, that said copy of said last will
and testament Of said deceased be allowed,