Court Opinion

ID: 9809119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:01:03.972192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:58.468755
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J.,
dissenting: I cannot agree with tbe majority of my brethren that no reversible error was committed on tbe trial of this case. This is one of those cases which naturally appeals to tbe sympathy of a jury, and they are naturally prone to set the will aside. Therefore, I think this Court should be very careful to see that no substantial injustice has been done to tbe propounders on tbe trial.
Upon carefully reading tbe record, I think that some of tbe assignments of error should be sustained and a new trial ordered, and I will briefly call attention to one or two of them.
Tbe following questions and answers were permitted by tbe court over tbe propounders’ objection:
Tbe witness Cook was asked, “When you beard what that paper contained, after that, did you state that in your opinion Mr. Staub did not have bis right mind when be made that paper ?” Answer: “I. said that if I thought I bad done a thing like that, or another man did that, be was not treating bis family right, and be must be crazy.”
To my mind, this question and answer are plainly incompetent. Tbe ■witness Cook was permitted to give bis opinion of tbe character of tbe will and of tbe propriety and justness of tbe disposition which tbe testator bad made of bis property. He was permitted to say substantially that any man who would make such a will must be crazy. It is common learning that it is not for tbe witness to give bis opinion of tbe *142character of tbe will nor tbe wisdom and justice of tbe disposition of tbe property. That is a matter to be considered by tbe jury as a circumstance. In this case tbe witness is permitted to put bimsélf in tbe place of tbe jury and to pass on tbe weight of that species of evidence. This witness occupied a position which gave him peculiar weight with tbe jury. He was a witness to tbe will, consequently, not tbe witness of either party, but tbe witness of tbe law, and what be states is calculated to have more weight with tbe jury than that of an ordinary witness.
Tbe witness was further asked: “From your experience and observation of him, is it not a fact, in your opinion, that be was entirely under tbe domination, direction, and control of tbe Christian Science people?” Answer: “Yes, sir.” It is true that tbe issue as to undue influence was not answered, but this testimony was well calculated to prejudice tbe loropounders as to tbe issue of mental capacity and to create in tbe minds of tbe jury a hostile feeling. It is not competent for a witness to give bis opinion as to whether an individual is dominated by a church or any other society, religious or otherwise. It is a matter for tbe jury to pass on, taking into consideration all tbe evidence and surrounding circumstances. Tbe very reason that tbe jury is impaneled is to pass on tbe condition of tbe mind of tbe testator, and it is not for tbe non-expert witness to give bis opinion as to what effect certain surroundings would have upon that mind. Tbe witness may give bis opinion as to whether a man at a certain time was sane or insane, but be cannot give bis opinion upon tbe sufficiency of certain surroundings and conditions to produce that condition of mind.