In re the Probate of the Will of Smith

—This is an appeal by proponents from the refusal of the surrogate to admit the will to probate.

The reasons of the surrogate were that the deceased could not read or write and the contents of the will were not made known to him; that he was of unsound mind and memory, and that the will was made under undue influences.

The deceased had accumulated by industry about $6,000. He had a wife with whom he had lived on good terms for thirty years. He had never had any children. He had kept a hotel, patronized by workingmen, for some twenty-five years; and was-himself accustomed to drink. His wife was a hard-working woman.

The deceased made this will about a month before his death, and by it he gave $200 to his nephew, James Smith, and everything else to his wife; making her executrix and Judge Crane, of Saratoga Springs, executor., He had three brothers surviving, and several nephews and nieces, and he had had also a sister who was not known to be living.

The will was dated September 17, 1882. Proceedings for probate were commenced March, 1883; and after some delay the will was admitted to probate March 20, 1889. This probate was

In January, 1890, the present proceedings were commenced by the executor. The will is witnessed by James M. Andrews and TTiram H. Martin, and is signed" by the mark of the testator. Andrews had died before the hearing. His signature was proved.

We are unable to see sufficient evidence to establish undue influence. It was proved (assuming the testimony to be admissible) that he had previously made another will, by which he gave his property to his wife for life. But this change of testamentary disposition is not enough evidence of undue influence, and we find little else.

Nor do we think that the evidence sustains the finding that the deceased was of unsound mind and memory. It is plain that he was accustomed to drink too much spirituous liquor, and that he showed the effects of this habit. But an examination of the evidence does not show that unsoundness of mind which disqualifies one from making his will. We do not think it necessary to go over the details of the evidence, since there are some other points which we must examine.

The contestants urge that as the deceased could not read or write, there was not sufficient evidence that he knew the contents of the will. The facts are that the will was drawn by Judge Crane, a lawyer of long practice, who had been for some time judge of the county court. It was drawn at the request of deceased, and at his house. Mr. Andrews, one of the witnesses, was a lawyer, a man of large business, and at the time over sixty years old, evidently acquainted with the deceased, as appears from the conversation stated by Martin. Judge Crane and the deceased were together in the room when the two witnesses came in. Judge Crane read aloud the attestation clause in their presence, but did not, in their presence, read aloud the will. The decision in Rollwagen v. Rollwagen, 63 N. Y., 504 , is that when a testator cannot read, write or speak, there must be, not only the ordinary proof of subscription and execution, but also proof that the testator understood the contents of the will. The same rule was applied in Matter of Bull, 20 N. Y. State Rep., 522, to the case of a testator who was nearly blind. Now, the application of this general rule must vary with the circumstances. For instance, in the Rollwagen case the testator had been paralyzed and could not utter an intelligible sound, and there were many circumstances which made it doubtful whether the will expressed his wishes.

In the present case, although the testator could not read, yet he was in full possession of his faculties. His brother, not mentioned in the will, came for the witnesses. A lawyer of high character, who had held judicial position, drew the will at the request of deceased. It was drawn at the house of deceased. ■Judge Crane, the lawyer who drew it, was in the room with deceased when the witnesses came and read the attestation clause in their presence and in the presence of the testator. One of the witnesses, as we have seen, was also a lawyer of experience. Add to these circumstances the fact that the will was simple in its

We have, then, in this case more than the mere fact of the formal execution of the will. We have circumstances from which any one might reasonably infer that the deceased knew the contents, as it was distinctly proved that he knew the nature, of the instrument.

The contestants claim that as one of the subscribing witnesses was dead, and as the testator signed by a mark, the will could not. be proved. Code Civ. Pro., §§ 2618, 2620. It is enough to say that Judge Crane, not a subscribing witness, proved that the testator made his mark. This is sufficient proof of handwriting. But we do not decide, as intimated in some cases, that a subscribing witness may not in such a case prove the handwriting by a. mark of the testator. It is not necessary to pass on that question.

Mr. Brackett was called as a witness by contestants. He testified, under objection, to instructions given him, as counsel, by Smith in respect to drawing a previous will in which he was a witness. He then testified, under objection, that Mr. Andrews, the deceased subscribing witness to the will in question, came to his office and said that the will of Mrs. Smith (referring to that drawn by Mr. Brackett) was unjust to Mr. Smith, and that he (Andrews) was going down to have another drawn. It is quite doubtful whether this evidence was admissible. It in no way affected the question of the execution of the will in question, nor was it an impeachment of a witness who had testified at the trial. If even we assume that Andrews stood in the same position as if he had been alive and had testified, this evidence did not contradict anything he could be supposed to have said. Matter of Hesdra, 119 N. Y., 615 ; 28 N. Y. State Rep., 810.

If Mr. Brackett, being a witness to the former will, Matter of Coleman, 111 N. Y., 227 ; 19 N. Y. State Rep., 501, were competent to testify to statements of deceased, still he could not properly testify as to the contents of such will until its loss was. shown.

Judge Crane was asked: “When the will was about to be executed what did Smith say in the presence of Martin and Andrews, the witnesses, in respect to that will and his satisfaction with its provisions ? This was objected to under § 835 and excluded on the ground that this was a communication in the course of professional employment. There is no doubt that this section applies to counsel employed by a client to draw a will. Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239 ; 19 N. Y. State Rep., 631, and the Coleman case, ut supra. But in the latter case the decision referred to conversations with the attorneys at the time of giving instructions to draw the will. The case here is entirely different. Judge Crane was asked simply as to a statement made by Smith in the presence of the subscribing witnesses and Judge Crane just before the execution of the will.

The decree of the surrogate should be reversed and issues should be sent to the Saratoga circuit, costs to abide final event; order and issues to be settled by Learned, P. J.

Landon and Mayham, JJ., concur.