(list

lllr

lr I sho

lvl .

_, | I fi

Jr, _vt-$2.1

'iii

l .I

vi . rg

_;;i__\ \»|‘

`r`§ ff? il" ‘Q

. 3.

qi .,_ \‘ 'Si if

Till l.

iff

ii:

-1.

_.lip

f lv' _i ll'

:li wr

l |..;i. ----{ .,

it it

-iii ‘._ of v ,'_.._.

is lb ‘(l`

.r_

'li

1.545! iii.

,_ ,........ .- ._-»

lu v

iff

il,"

ll .` J Y

‘ii

I I

- _ _ - Y - -- - - - - - - --~----_--v -~------------l _ _ , . , , . __ _____=

- _m, sm Gum md .he would ,°lncr_l :mn ho luovlll ooughum lamp

Ihad To this William Nelson re-

motes sas -#N .Iowa homo li et his will one ~ .

i. leo. sic. l_l`l'_-_» . Y .mmum “mg mv, w,,__ plies: "ln cue anything moms

Eve. 1 sr s.4s -`._ y "* ' ' ' ~ ; 1, P __

' two

...,..,,,_ I lnefxsesl Toon

m unbymrnellsesmakes

the

iiit :=8g sg.

.iam Ncsons place for good ht; thatbewouldbllmthewilldrawns

one vnotenlsume on lo mdzhsn 3° asked appellant to take down UN C names ef certain persons to whom In

h' i :°'T;;;d\;qu°;’“ the sppelllht says he replied: _"I

d have a will made but destroy-

itsslwanttomakesomenewbe- eats". Coughlizx said: "That is not* rd to do, William Nelson oen~lo

to 0'Leary any day and bring

one. He then got s piece of DIP"

s o

ss to be a memoran- dx hun when making °“ but it was to be kept Q”

, ppellant. The beneficiaries 1”

were to includetheappellant her- W"

DOW

pen to the old gent, it would p a lot of lelll proceedings rding to the appellant tha tsl . r then said that after he lot t`ter he would go to town and ve his business fixed up. David ughlin asked him if he did not ve his business fixed up. to which

_'H <1-;° CN r-l

“ 'Attra_`otlvs_ Showing of llon’s _T " Well Tailored. Suits "

:lnlslr Mel f' News-1 l--'**. is s°di'§fl-en: fllloliliglm "°""“* lah" '°t-~::'s

|l¢¢l¢ln Straws and

$22.un,o25.nu, 532,00 '.'..“.t... rt... ......

Fanoy -Ylorstoli Suits

~ . .. .». -1,..

. 4 . .UF

self for $30,000; her three sons for hwy" “‘m‘°“ h°"°'" H* ‘“‘"‘h°" _ \ K 'F' A mmm; h,,. hmm” 1,, ",000, 1,., ssid if Wlllism Nelson could set so This season’s newest shades in _ __ _ sum M. ,,_°0,,_ ,M W, ,nd Mm hs wsuslllinl would so- In his Styles you will like. Prices ' ' l ~

Z _ ___ J _ - - - _ it A. no dictates the wlu to me °“t °' his We" em” "°‘“‘°‘ “ “ I

Appeal Dismissed

At Ott

Mc Williims Case

Full Text Of Judgment As Delivered

Recently By Mr. Justice Lamont.

Fcllcv.'l.ig is the text of the judg-

ment ciclvered recently by Mr. .lus- tice Lflmolit and concurred in by Justice Newcombe, Rinfret and Cannon. in the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Jane Lid- stone, appellant, vs. Wiliam Nel- son McWilliams and Jallles B. Champion, executors of the last will and tcstzlment of Alfred McWil- liams, deceased. he-.ard before Jus- tice Duff, l\lo\vcombe, Rlnfred and - Cannon:

This is an appeal from the judg-

ment of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island reversing judgment of His Honour Harold L. Palmer, Judge of Probate, in the matter of the estate of Alfred Mc- Williams. lrltc of West Cape in Prince County in the said Island' cfuceased.

Allred McWilliams died on April

22nd, 1028, and a document, dated February 27th, 1928, purporting to be his last will was proved in the Probate Court and probate in com- mon iornl was granted to the re.

. a.

' d

fggjeiinté as executors name testator having testamentary capac-

ity, and also established that it was

The appellant, Jane Lidstone. a

hieco ol Alfred lvlcwilliomr, ond '

_ . t

one of hs hurs and next of km' ordinarily, in the absence of sus- a

caused lt citation to bc issued out oi

respondents to prove the will in sol- S

. . , |

em" mrm Tho Judge of Probate nflexible rule on the subject. If, th

pwever, there are circumstances t0

gave Judgment dccreemg that the which arouse the suspicions of the_f'°

-_ _. - c

said “lil should be :ct aside and was premred by a person who takes t

after hearing evidence on the part X of the respondents and appellant,|

probate thereof rescinded. From

this decisioli the respondents ap- H' poaleci to the Supreme Court of p

Prince Ecilvard Island. The appeal S was hoard by chief Justice Muthie- ° son and Mr. Justice Arsenauit, who c allowed the appeal. reversed the °

Judgment of the Judge of Probate the onus of proving fraud or unduevt and ostoollshca the will. From that ”‘"“e“°°° is "‘”°w“ °“ me °i°"°“'

judgment Jane Lidstone appeals to e this court.

The will_in question reads as fol-

lows:

1' Allred McWilliams of B

. West

Cape- Prince County, Province of kindred, or to a sentiment of gratl- N Prince Edward Island, do hereby tude for post services or pity for C

“_ ‘ ' fll

declare this my last will and tc.Lamelit, and revoke all former

I_ appoint Wlll‘am Nelson Mcwil- made, he nlust not be driven into t Laois (with whom I reside) and making a will wllicll he dues not u

Dr. Jalrles B Champion of 0'-

of tllls my lust will and testo- W

mg-ny own volition, and not the records lh

I bc-qlienth» to my nephew Sey- of

’“°"l` M°l~f=”i ti” sum °f W0 oureux (loom /l, c. soo; smut Ku. hir wire iooir up residence there on the occasion of th. visit in william Nelson has the key Davie,

hlll:ril'f'l and fifty dollars; to

sL_,._._.5_¢ Mcwmiams me sum of _ nsr Bebe v. Sakhi Chand (19281 l...R. uve luwlroq uoual-sl no John W Ind- A-°ll?~ 622 F“1°°“ '- -‘\"‘*"W"W

Z' J ...|lle¢.l`.._ - ~

awa In

hundred and fiity dollars; all the

real and personal property I give

rest and resdlie of my estate both

to William Nelson McWilliams

Amos Coughlih the sum of two The learned Jud” °f Pl'°bat° sp o b9

with whom I now reside, and hereunto affix my name to this It my last will and testament this h Twenty-seventh day of February e nineteen hundred and twenty- h

eight, 27th Feb. 1928.

RULES OF LAW 10

The rules of law in accordance :V

with which cases of this nature are

dispute in so far as they are neces-

to be decided do not admit of any

. _ _ m

sary to the determination of this f.

appeal. They may be stated as lol.

lows: ' ,

The propounder of a will must t

satisfactorily establish is

(rl) that the testator had tests- c mentaly ca acl at the date f

(bl That the will had been duly d

approved of the contents thereo'l'.- W

When it has been established that

ead by, or read over to, the tes-

d of its contents, but there is noiW

uspiclon by proving that the tes- ator knew and approved of thcic

.una mill owner in west cope. our-isnt that he could not remain there rlnney. 'rlnney aid not hens over ' °h"“P'°“_

Dntents of the dwument' and it is' g his iifetimo he acquired 5 vn1._fany longer; that ho had given to the key, but wrote the appellant :;°eh?el;r':llt;;tmL:e’:_'d L1;°'m;

liable farm'of 600 acres and, at the vwilliam Nelson consldersviile Droll* and asked her to see the testator get the Jud" of Pmhuedmefhh lme of his death, he had in ad-'erty and did not intend to sive him and. I! he wanted the bonds trans- Judgment sMd___ '

tion some $50,000 or $60,000 or any more: that he had mods s will. fel-red, to get him to sign a deeu- ' `

personal property, mostly in bonds. but that he had now changed his ment which he enclosed. On Misrch He a ars to have been a shrewd mind and intended to destroy it lst the a eliant and her brother,

TESTATOWS VOLITION lntelllgelit man, and for a. con-,end make a new one. The chief David Oozehiin, went to see the_

sldornhie time he represented his Y cause of the unpleasantnees with testator. on arriving she first saw Istrict in the Provincial Legis- William Nelson seems to have been William Nelson and wife in the lature. When his nephew, Wl11is.m,in reference to some $4-3,000 Oi kitchen and said she had received elson McWilliams (hereinafter, bonds which the testator had in 8, a letter from Mr. Tinney. She read alled William Nelson), was a llttle_box in the bank at Chsrlottetowrifvtn them the letter and the order

_ y, the testator tool: him to llve,snd which accordins to the,,al-ld then went upstairs, and she

v.-'lilo uns bequests by m, mode. whim °*h"“'“° ll" "-“"1" lm hm at the form with himself, endupoeilcni, william Nelsonfl-ess boihto thsmzsrsrwnossidne

hereafter, seems to have lookedfwos trying to get the tests- was not going to sign shythiflli

_sh __ __ I __ ds ms pon him as a son. In 1905 the tor to bring to 0‘l.»ssry and plai9,ths/t he wanted his bonds I-nd his

,. ._ _ Q ~ _ W ° mf* °`- 'I ° W" Wm” i testator married but there were no in the bank there in Wlllialn N0 ‘ i money left v/here they were. lome

Lea 5 P E' wand' mr Execumrs children of the marriage. In 1912 son's name. '1'he\ey of the D0! discussion t/ook place s,s to who

e moved from the farm at West was held by Frank Tinney who liv-'should hold the key of the testa-

Cipe to Charlottetown. and with ed in Charlottetown. _tor's box, and it was intimated that

Th ' I

nly when this has been done that ii"

nts of the will. dl

While a testator may be led by d ppeals to the affection, to ties of

ture dcstitution into limiting ci will bo

ill must bc the ofl‘.:pl'.ng of hlsi

another pcrsolrs. Crng v. Lam-

will has been duly executed by B. p

ator bc-fore execution, there arises w

it - rlvu womans

sur. sous nmsjlh

| I

Laugh at The

Riotous Comedy

U ~ n

Stretch Your `

Imaginatio tothe Limll.

of the Futlue ONLY Then Multiply it

You cam _THING . Help

Yourself U N D

It is Greater

Than with Brought to You

by Ten. And You Will Have Only a

ER snot mee. 'of me

Endless _Wonders

“Sunnyside Msunlisn m This

°'S“"““"‘N Great ' , t The Store f B '

Up H JOHN GABRICK As tn what then wok phce DL or or expec ing him to give her _ 0 ¢tf6l‘ Men S Wear

. MARJORIE WHITE Extnvumn Chmpion s.ys:_ money, but ss she. had got $500.

EL BRENDEL

lor (1917) P. 256; Parflt v. Lawless

(1872) L. R. 2 P. &_D. 462.

In Tyrrell v. Painton (1894) P. a

151, Davey L. J., at page 159, said:

“It must not be supposed that

2 Moc. P.C. 480, is confined to h

cases where the person who pre-

that whenever a will is prepared H under circumstances which raise

does not express the mind of the 19

¢°>StBt0l'. the Court ought not to 10 pronounce in favour of it unless fa

that suspicion is removed.” an

there was evidence given bythe firm- He visited her s-gain in the 1 Acc!"-A nm ed in Dr. Champion to dravw the

itnessos of both sides to justify latter party of November, 1927, and, Both will and order were si¥n°d_ NCB 0' ms NY

ose finriings,;1; would be ¢¢,nm,_1~y_ in January, 1928. Each or these in the forenoon of February 2'1th.l Wm’ th '

the jurisprudoncu of this court visits lasted a couple of weeks. On and, in the afternoon, ti-leeppellsnt wmmm if d:;°°P1u°;‘__°: E31; M°' disturb them, The one questiqmitlie occasion of these visits, par-land her son Guy went to see the_ “ned on bm.; -of __esmnd°:_: 0m,t__as_ for exampm if the Wm therefore, which must date,-mineéticularly the last two, the appel-` testator. Neither he nor anyone were to rem” my bmam under justhy the conclusion thlt a npu-lv

he foto of this appeal 15; did ghezlel-it says the testator refemd re- else informed her of the doctor's the Wm so why should their ew table professional man could not

benefit under “,_the party pw testator when he executed the w1il_vi'>e&tedly to 'the ill-treatment he`visit in the forenom, not of the dence not be .tempted M the _“___ oundmg the Wm must remove the have knowledge 01 its oontemsp lwas receiving at the hands of Wil- making of the new will. On the 29th, many of mdepmdent wnnesbea? uilired Micwiliiams (hereinafter ilsm Nelson. und that his life on of February, William Nelson and

- S ki

oiled the testator) was 5 furmerithe funn had become so unpleas- Dr. Champion took the order to pe. ns or the °t°t°m°“"° mm’

e arr ed, and

to ond or the appellant one sen. and appointed wllliwm Nelson “id th” *"° M" “‘°““““ °' "W" helped wllllom Nelco\ to get him

embers of her family had testi. and Morley Bell executors of his ‘"3 them t° °L°”y` rtualssmin' Upvlsifs to bed. He wus there u- leo to assertions mole by Alfred will- The will was made in dupll- ’°"“°d 17"- °"“"“P‘°“ " _ if goin about Merch lsr. Mopherron cwiliionn shortly before his me and the (senior cook 0.... my hed the key but th" Wimam N* love this during his visit. on the death that he was going to benefit away with him and the other was 5°" might “ Wm mve mein mgvlsst occasion, the testator told him ho appellant by his will. there ex- left in the office or lvrr. Bell. Ar- “ ‘t "W -““‘°‘ D" °h”'“"°“ t° about hsvills made o. new will and ted circumstances of s,,sp,C,,,,, 1,, lor mailing _this will tho mmol- fm* *‘_h°v;'_;_‘_‘:_'___fi **;_f:;__“‘°h“;. that he woe giving his property to

_ P ty 0 onnectlon with the preparation of feillmed £0 the fsrm and informed _aid gavgto glvemm “nord” The William Nelson. Mrs. Grossman

the execution of the Wm; _the will, which suspicion it was the William Nelson and his wife of the _ th te rd _‘mi me did the washing and ironing for

utv of william Nelson M,,vv,m,,_m, contents thereof. This will was d°° °’ °“ "’° ““ ° °*‘ the Mowililnm :emily for many

executed and attested, and lto remove, and, although present 5UPP059d t0 be Placed by the lbs!-B' delivery of the Mud! and the tes'iyee.rs. She ironed in the kitchen fri that the testator knew and in court, he foiled in go into the f°l' ln s drawer or the cluehoorq in f-“W Milled ii- M 8 ms”-ff °f 'W' where the resistor st

4 o en sat. She

imoss box and remove these sus. the room used by him as an office p"1°" t° N°"°mb°" um' 1927' tm testified that in the fal d

I 01' llflhl

ttt hd Itte toTinneyto ’

ohms, uno in which he kept his papers. 5;; Ke somzfto am at o,u__m_, 3_2 more he got sick, he

th I er a e wls goirlgto leave

wru, muy Exngvmn evmr-:Nos nuvmwsin _I::_kh;‘ ;‘_;’:1c_§I;'_:__*:‘_:_;’*_;“;_e°f“__;’ r_;is____i;ioney sos property to william

' e . Sh

As both courts below found the During the summer of 1927 the- Tinney wrote to him advising that mt.; $237330 fiatsndio thlitimtgll lu u, have been 5.1,, executed icsnior visited the home or hisithe sonar be len where they were Y ‘

at Wiilli is ' '

nu the testator to have been pos. niece. the appellant, at Cape Wolfe, until next spring. _he was 3;] ;t__s";‘_‘e; :_l_1d told her mm Nelson “ned to so into the

ere.

_ _ piclous circumstances, a strong pre- S9SSed of testamentary capacity and three and 3 half miles from the APPELLANPS STATEMENT ~

the Probate Courtcalilng upon the umpton that he knew and appmw _as

tumed to William Nels0n's

and the 21th, the ldcstion of

dl?/WB.

e move. the appellant suggestswdsnuary the testator, according to Coughlin asked William Nelson as dus to unnleasantness result- the evidence of the wbsiiant andwhat riiht he had to s key I-UZ

contracted s heavy cold. Dr; Chsm~ W olon was cures in on the ulh and fl* llndln; the testator ill, out urn so ‘°° boo and obtained for mm s trgin- 5°* cd nurse, iftuth McDonald, who re- in -mllned with him.u!itil his death. some time between rebmary imi th

te-n”stor's will was referred io. The ° testator ssioit was in me room be- 4° low among his papers. Bearch was fe

made for it by William Nelson and his wire but is could not be round. P° William Nelson then called u Dr W5

where the testator requested him '° to draw his will, storing that the th Morley neu will ooulli not oe round NU

and that he wanted another one 'ft

DR. CHAMYIONS STATEMENT gn

tho

s to talk.

CONTRA STATEMENTS

ta .Lid

by the testator to Dr

"-‘iltheush the not

Mrs. Lidstone receiving thugrgpto erty from testator‘s wife appear to hive b¢€i‘l as Stated by the old man I retard the evidence of these witnesses ss amounting to no more than this; Alfred Mc- willilmr wu annoyed that ssoo of his wife's money should go to some one other than himself and When the matter came or was brousht to his mine his pique was directed towards his niece u the recipient of this property, and I do nm think that th stats- merlts made by the ’l'eTt.htor are irreconcilable with the whole evi- dence which easily convinces me that normally the Testator had a

d destroyed the will but that it

on did not suit him, while the nurse

testified that when the testator l

Puma” M' A my an “wr M ss asked about having his business

ed up, he replied that he had me business through the eolmtrv

° fixed up yet." During all this

terview no one mentioned to the

I/ppellant, or to David Ooughlin,

at u new will had been drawn

three days before. Shortly after hls interview one of William Nel- n’s girls was taken ill with scarlet ver and visiting at the house

was somewhat restriced. The Up-

llsnt, therefore, did not see the

D _ tator again until some few days

champion, who had drslwrl up 3 before his death when he was un-

nunober of wills, and liked him to W1

come out. On arriving he was in- formed that the 'I‘estaf0r‘l will could not be found I-Did thot it was lihely he would went another on!

drawn. Dr. Champion then procee- ID ries to the term/ol-'s bedroom the

As against the statement of the pellsnt and hes' witnesses that

testator expressed an intention benefit her by his will we have

1” from

The boys who know

_.sm

match. -

` - 1931 styles.

-' " -W i

and value are buying them

Fucrrr slum with 'ries to

-FLASH Bathing Suits new

Hosiery up to size uv,

'Plan (who were no relation to evidence David C°ll8h1in testified . , - 7 1-" - J” the oztator out mens. of the sn- ml "‘° °°'°“°’ “M “°° W

pellant) for $5,000. The testator re- h*

$18.00- to $35.00 l

.`. \ E, l l

O _ _".

Style and Value

’.§f..l’.“§.?.I.‘lZ"`..’.'T`.`f’szs.oo 1

wi'

st io -. ;-__;_-

.fa 1

2 V"-v

,W9 5}|jl¢"fll (1 Complete Line

- 0|' en and Feel We Can Home y

e evidence or Dr. Cha pio and N t Y ou Wh¢" rse McDonald that. amfewn days ex ou Need S°"'¢"'l'|U- .

ei'

of Wearing Apparel ‘

er the will was drawn, the tes- _ r

inl'0I'med th (10610 thB4i Mr _

. HARRY A Ma D

-=~ril2r»~cr5rr2.imA""

by memory "mms to make it number of things that was all he f¢1’Di'°f~lfi0ll 50152 PINK 0903' the

(1875) 7 HL. 448; Gregson v. Tay~ ‘ing from William Nels0n's had the same as the will that Morley intended she should have Ella Mc ¢°8'¢lYA‘>1"s declaration. Purtherrnore.

um,” Th, mm was vm in me Felli or s_l_l‘lnm;rrlue,_hs<i prev- williams, wire or william Nelson, slthouah the lvpeusnt claimed so srcnlon of wmmm Nelm, who, _mga W;eq__l;m°f uh; _}_c_f_i_1:;g also testifies thot, both mov, and be his favourite niece. his affection year or so later, himself got mar- them to m, whm, he mid we” “Y” FWTUIYY 37511. 1929. the tes- f*;'sh"' 5° 1" 95 *|10 °Vld¢D¢¢ dil- rled. in this former win with one err- . "*°f spoke of the things he me :_ sl- _owes ___ “Sw sufficiently Although aff,” 1912 me testavm- ception in this will he said Elven to Mrs. Lidstone. He said ffm! en* ° ¢l‘f»°fi!\¢|l P1194

the principle in Barry v. Butlin, lived in gharlomwwn he always ;v__s;m__i:1 _tl;;50f§_rn_i°erw:_l;e. Que when he broke up house at char- in shy will he ever lnads. not even

ad 5 room kept for mm in _pm N ul ° f _ ‘$5 °' lottetown he gave her anything she fm' 5 5mU1‘b°qU¢-Sh

paras the Wm is me person who _house mr the farm and there hc _ Ylixsfugout °wt?1rmf:;“i‘;m£a`né wanted out of the house, and “that Referring to the evidence oi’ the lakes me benefit under i,,_t1-,M lived for a couple of weeks every me Mr. Saunders, I wrote the will he had given her all he intended "‘”'5¢- J- A- MCPhel‘Son and lille is one state of things which raises summer, looking after his business with -lu-5° M13 M°Wmi9~m8 ill U10 W-" , ` .M°wm13'm5- U -5° th? it-Sffl0i>X"B a suspicion; but the principle is, and collecting moneys due to him. xiggegighrelildwftub ;gt°e’;_e__1_‘_7 wvglfg We have also the evidence of d¢C|°l‘°»U°D “Ut he hid made I

e-kept his books and accounts I it - 1 H tp m d Nurse Mooonald, nun lvlicwiiliams. “°W Will sud Mt his srevsrty to

a “,eu_gm,mded summon that it there. in 1925 his wire siemens, in §5k,dv§,',‘,'., ,f°v§f,;',§',_, as ,,§‘w':§‘,_ J. A. Mcpherson and Mrs. cross- Willism Nelsm. the Judge of Pro

26, he sold his house in char- ted it and he slid it was. I then man. as to _declarations made by “W SUSI-

tgetown ,md went back to the culled Miss McDonald to 001118 the testator indicating his intention

rm io live with william Nelson \i‘;‘n°; “n’;_$°n§”f_°e’_;‘ hg__"‘_fh:f`-thl_’f_°“Q§; as to the disposal or hir property. a his family. The following ms Wm she Wu about ,A ,,,,,_ Nurse Mononala testified that ring he paid a visit of some six and the signatures all took place on three or four occasions

und that the will in quesuon had or seven weeks duration to Mr. and with the three of us together the testator stated to her on executed with the necessary Mrs. Frank Tinney. While there, Pl'¢S¢l\t With #Mil 09101'-,ea that he intended leaving most of rmollcles and that Alfred Mc- =°°°r‘iill8 t0 Mrs- Tillney. he said Ute’ th’ Wm “'”. “gr ohm his property to. william 'Nelson pimms at me mme he executed he was sorry he had given _up his mm N°]s°"‘ °'°°°"dm3 md _Zh tes: Ella McWilliams testified that after hud testamemavy capamy_ He_ house in Charlottetown and gone l°“' enter” the _F me the new will was made the testator owevor, held thot the pronouns. book io live with william Nelson. "°'°’,,°°‘° hf§“ the _ W” “"m_ ioio her that he hm made that will rs of the W111 had my satisfied Before he returnedtothe1'alm,l-low “"1” arf? I un “vine y°“ an Pflcitveily the esme is the other lm that Amed Mclvvimams muyiever, he ecuea nt thc office or his *muy “H ' .md "ki: “Ti °° one and that he was leaving his understood and appreciated the “tt°m°Y» M°l'1°-V Ben- 5115-011 April care M Lorena' gvillaxfmas m°“¢y Ind property to William contents thereof. He was of opln- 30th- 1927- MT- B€1i d-\'9W UD his mm ns he lived' W c h _ N91-1011. that he AIWHYS intended h um as Wmim Nelson Mc. will. ny that will he left all his N°’°°“ P"°“"'S°“ "° df" D" ° “mg that he should have it as he rc. pimms had been msgrmnental in property, with the exception of 1°" “ked “wut the “tate msg; garded him as his own boy. J, A. aving the will prepared and as he certainsmall bequests amounting te5"’t°r wld him muh the d M°Ph0l'S0l1 Went to see the testa- took tractically the whole of the in all t0 $1500-00. to William Nei- m me bank at chulottewwn “_ W1' U" "Milt the illlrs iv

BEM

~“l see no reason wthy I should 11°# swells this evidence but I am concerned as to the value I am to place on it. Here again the absence from the witness~box of William Nelson leave the Court at a disadvantage."

ws:rorn' or zvmmds

Throughout his whois ,iudgmentthe learned Judge of Probate seems to have allowed his appreciation of the W°i8ht which should be given to the testimony of the witnesses called for the respondents to bg gffgctsd bv the failure or william Nelson to explain his pert in procuring the making of the will, for he says, at ooze 468:- ,

"In the circumstances 'and for

lack of any explanation from Wm. Nelson I must presume that . Dr. Qhampion was William Nei- son's selection and not the testa- tor's as draught!-mon of the will. _These facts and Dr. Champion‘s material interest ss sn executor in the outcome of this else (for the executors commission in an estate of this size cannot be is- rlored) prevent -ine from giving the weigiht to Dr. Champion'| evidence that the authorities second to that of an independent

physician."

.PROFESSIONAL BIPUTE

'Illu.s. is my opinion, was fair to

Dr. Champion. The fact that Wil-

witness box to explain why he call-

wlll, end the fact that the law sl- , lows an executor some remuner- _ ation for his services to the Htl". does not seein to me suffiecierlt t0_‘

be trusted to truthfully stain what occurred when the will vm slsns\‘i» I fully agree if there was any fact in the knowledge of William NOIIMI which would have thrown light on any suspicious cireltmstanoes rele- vsnt to the question in dlsrnite. it was his duty to place his informs- tion at the disposal of the court. and, when he failed to do so. my prefumption that could legitimat- ely~be drum against him, ought to be so drawn. But what was the mltter in dispute before the Judle of Probate? There Wil no dispute shout the execution of the will, nor any dlsluteastothstestetor's cspa. city to make a valid will. lven the argument before us counsel for the aliiielllllt admitted tltawrb capa- city te make a will although, to my mind, these were a number of incidents testified to which could more readily explained on the around or want of ospaoity than oo

worm feeling for his niece."

I lm unable to find anything in L

the evidence to lust!! such an in-

any other ground. The only point found against the rsspondmts was tbstthstsststor did Mt knew or,

slmlvveof the terms of the wiv "MW 11° Milled- What evidence could William Nelson hw, gm., thst would have thrown any iight on the testator's knowledge 01 mes, terms He was not present when .the will was drawn and there is not a particle of evidence that he eve,- llltlelted to Dr. Champion that ho should .use his influence with me testator to hwe the will made in his (Wlllilm _NcIsor1's) favour, 0|,-_ that he himself had tried to lniiu-. 812% "I0 t$Nl7U!"S mind in his favs

' OW- H9 did not need to. The testa-

fbf hid alreldy given ‘him a deed 0! the farnyand had already mme s. will in his favour, and there ig no evidence to suggest that he was aware of any declaration of intend tion, made by the testator, tu- benefit the appellant. No doubt: when the testator took sick. Wi1< -i..____`______ Continued on page 9

i *IIARDWOUD

FLUUIIIIIG

It: .f vo

ev.. <2

Beautiful ~ »~ and Oak un- '

thicknesses to ehoov

5 ii §c

Mao|l0|lALii -RDWE

woonwolmmo oo-. LTD-

Phone Charlottetown

-'\-l-l-_-_-___--__---‘ H

- I

_ L'_f1B._110

.@0944

lilllpond

Tho Best- Swedes

for home use and expert

°'sm.r.roNn'° rsrslo ‘Iss- HASIAIDS IMPIOVID-

lronsglfep. l

Both of thus 'rnmivl U*

popular In the AIIEIIUAN

Seed for Sale at olrllln 1

son.: so the 'lssdlsl 8 ulnianuns. 3

Garter & (io. Ltd. lo-v-e-e-ee-eeo+e+e-wee-M040*-‘

oo-ooo

$0-I

‘E