Court Opinion

ID: 9809783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:27:20.643648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:21.306863
License: Public Domain

Waliceb, J.,
concurring in the result: We have a well established rule in appellate courts that in reviewing a charge of the court we should read it as one connected whole, and not distributively, allowing one part to correct any seeming error in another part of it, provided the two are not in deadly conflict. If we follow this rule, not more clearly stated than in S. v. Exum, 138 N. C., 599, where human life was the issue, and examine the extract from the charge in this case in the light of other portions of it, we will find most assuredly that the law as to the mental capacity required to make a will was fully and accurately stated by the learned presiding judge, and the jury were especially instructed to consider the other parts of the charge to which we have referred in connection with what was to follow, and told that if, within the definition and explanation given to them by the court, the testator did not have sufficient mental capacity at the time she executed the script they should find against its validity. It is my opinion that there was no error in the selected instruction when properly construed, but surely there was none if we read it in connection with those that preceded it. But even if there was any error in the instruction of the presiding judge selected by the Court as the ground for a new trial, there was a codicil to the will which, in law, amounted to a republication of it (Watson v. Hinson, 162 N. C., 72; Gulland v. Gulland, 94 S. E., 943; Lawrence v. Burnett, 96 S. E., 416), and there was no such objection to the charge as to the execution and validity of the codicil. For all that appears, she executed the same without any help or suggestion from others, and this cured any error in regard to the will, if there was any.
But I think there was an error otherwise in the charge, which was prejudicial to the caveators, that is, if we are to follow a decision of this Court of recent date, on competency of evidence as to mental capacity, and especially with reference to declarations and conduct of the testator. While I question the correctness of that decision, and of others which may have followed it, it has the weight of authority and precedent until it is reversed or modified, and should have been heeded by the court below.
Therefore, I concur in the result, but dissent from the opinion so long as the new trial is based upon the error alleged in it.