Court Opinion

ID: 9793524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:49:07.609941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:50.825183
License: Public Domain

WELCH and JOHNSON, JJ.
(dissenting). Since we agree with the syllabus as stating correct rules of law, we deem it necessary to briefly state our dissenting views. We do not think the law rules of the syllabus are correctly applied to the facts.
This is an unusual case in view of the manner of obtaining the requisite approval of the will, and of the disposition made of the property of this illiterate full-blood Indian. Under the circumstances, we are impelled to the conclusion that a new trial should be ordered, with full and liberal right in the contestants to explore all related facts by depositions and otherwise, and with a re-examination of all facts and circumstances pertinent to the issues involved.
We think there was sufficient error in failure to fully protect the right to take depositions before trial, to justify reversal.
We think there was sufficient error in admitting testimony of the United States Probate Attorney to justify reversal. This testimony concerned communication with the Probate Attorney. He thought the communication was privileged as being between attorney and client and objected to testifying on that ground. The protestants likewise objected. We think the overruling of these objections was erroneous, and that the presence of the _ interpreter and agent did not remove the communication from the privileged class.
*281Such a retrial should not be thought to be too burdensome to proponent of the will. If the will stands the test of the more complete investigation and retrial, proponent would only be delayed a while. If this will cannot withstand the most searching attack then proponent ought not to prevail.