Jameson v. Hall

Inadmissible Evidence. On the trial of issues sent from an Orphans’ Court upon a caveat to a will, it was Held : 1st. That it was not competent for the caveators, for the purpose of showing that they never recognized the validity of the will in question, to prove by one of the caveators that he and another of the caveators, on the day of the interment of the deceased, after the interment, had a consultation, and determined to contest the validity of the will, and to employ counsel to do so. 2d. That it was not competent for the caveators to introduce evidence to show that the manner of one of the caveatees, while accompanying the corpse of the deceased for interment, was jovial — more so than was, in the opinion of the witness, in keeping with the occasion. 3rd. That it was not competent for the caveators to prove that on the day after the decease of the testator, one of the caveatees, in whose house the corpse was at the time, ‘1 was telling anecdotes, such as to create merriment, and such as were not fit to be repeated by the witness in the presence of ladies.”

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. On the 8th of March, 1871, the appellee filed in the Orphans’ Court of Prince George’s County a petition, in which they alleged that a certain John O. Ames, of said county, departed this life some time in the month of January, 1871; that Lizzie M‘. Hall was the sister and Alfred H. Ames the brother of the deceased John O. Ames, and were his only heirs at law and personal reprer sentatives; that on or about the 28th of January, 1871, a. certain John M. Jameson, exhibited a certain paper writing in the aforesaid Orphans’ Court, purporting to be the last will and testament of the said John C. Ames, by which -he devised certain property therein described, to Margaret J. Jameson, wife of the said John M. Jame-son, and named no executor or executors ; that said paper writing was admitted to probate as the last will and testament of the said John C. Ames, but without any of the near relatives of the deceased being in attendance, and without any notice having been given, or summons issued to the petitioners, and without any notice in the public papers or otherwise. The petition further alleged that the said paper writing was not the last will and testament of the said John C. Ames, and that at the time he executed the said paper writing he was not of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding, and capable of .executing a valid deed or contract, and that the same was procured through the fraud and undue influence of the .said John M. Jameson. The prayer of the petition was that the probate of the said paper writing might he revoked, and that the petitioners might file a caveat to the probate. On this petition the Court passed an order revoking the probate of-the said paper, unless cause to the contrary was shown on or before a day therein named, &e., and directing a summons to issue to John M. Jameson and wife, requiring them to appear and answer. John M. Jameson and his wife appeared, and filed their joint answer under oath to the petition. They denied that the said last will and testament was admitted to probate without notice to the petitioners, and stated what notice the relatives of the deceased had of the probating of said will, and the circumstances under which it was probated, filefl and recorded in the office of the Register of Wills of Prince George’s County. They also denied and indignantly repelled the charge in said petition, that they, or either of’them, exercised any fraud or undue influence over the decedent, so as to procure the making of said last will and testament by the said testator. They further denied that the said John C. Ames was of unsound mind, memory and understanding when he made said last will and testament, and averred most positively, that he was of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding, and perfectly capable of executing a valid deed or contract. They further stated in detail the circumstances under which the said last will and testament was prepared and executed; that it was written by a draft of a will prepared by the testator himself, &c., &c. Upon the petition of the caveators, the Orphans’ Court directed the following issues to be 'sent to the Circuit Court for trial: 1st. Whether the instrument of writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of John C. Arnes', dated the 13th day of January, in the year 1871, was executed by the said John O. Ames as his last will and testament? 2d. Whether the said instrument of writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of John O. Ames, and dated the 13th day of January, in the year 1871, was executed by the said John C. Ames as his last will and testament, when he was of sound and disposing mind, and capable of executing a valid deed or contract? 3d. Whether the instrument of writing, purporting to be the last will and testament wof John C. Ames, dated the 13th day of January, in the year 1871, was executed by the said John C. Ames under the influence of suggestions, importunities and undue persuasions of John M. Jameson or Margaret J. Jameson, the wife of said John M. Jameson, or of some other person or persons, when his mind, from its disordered, diseased and enfeebled state, was unable to resist the same? 4th. Whether the execution and making of the said alleged last will and testament of the said John O. Ames was his own voluntary act, to which he was induced without the exercise of an undue influence by the said John M. Jameson or Margaret J. Jameson, or both of them, or hy any other person or persons whatever; and whether he was prevented from making a disposition of his property, according to his own will, hy the said John M. Jameson or Margaret J. Jameson, or both of them? 5th. Whether the execution of the said .paper-writing by the said John G. Ames was procured by fraud or misrepresentations, or undue- influence or persuasion of the said John M. Jameson and Margaret J. Jameson, or either of them, or by any other person or persons whatsoever, acting by the direction of them or any of them ? 6th. Whether the said John O. Ames, in the situation in which he -was placed, and the circumstances surrounding him at the time when the said paper-writing was executed by him, was capable of withholding his assent to the same, and of acting in the disposition of his property, free from the undue influence of the said John M. Jameson and Margaret J. Jameson, or either of them? The caveatees also prayed for the following issue, which the Court granted:— Whether the said John O. Ames, in the proceedings mentioned, departed this life devisavit vel non? This issue was subsequently stricken out by consent. First Exception. — The caveatees having proved the due execution of the paper-writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of John O. Ames, further proved that the day after the death of the testator, it being the 19th of' January, 1871, the said paper-writing was handed to the said Alfred H. Ames, one of the caveators, at the house of the caveatees, where the testator died, and was read aloud by him in the presence of certain persons named, and that after the reading of tho will, a discussion arose among the parties as to where the said will should he probated, and it was suggested by John M. Jameson and Thomas Perry, that it should be probated and recorded in the office of the Register of Wills of Prince George’s County, and that after such discussion,' the suggestion was acquiesced in by the said Alfred H. Ames, who handed the said will to the said Jameson, and requested him to attend to tho probating, and the recording of it in the office of the Register of Wills of said County. Whereupon the caveators by their counsel, stated to the Court that they were willing that the jury should find for the caveatees upon the first and second issues, and would offer no proof on their part in support of the same, and proceeded to offer testimony to support the third, fourth, fifth and sixth issues on their part. And for the purpose of proving that the caveators had never recognized the validity of the said paper-writing, proposed to prove by Alfred H. Ames, one of the caveators, and brother of the deceased, “that on the 20th day of January, 1871, after the interment of the deceased, he and C. H. Hall, another of the caveators, and a brother-in-law of the deceased, had a consultation, and determined to contest the validity of the will, and to employ counsel to do so.” To the admissibility of this evidence the caveatees objected, hut the Court (Magruder, J.,) overruled the objection, and permitted the testimony to be given to the jury. The caveatees excepted. Second Exception. — In the further progress of the trial, tho caveators proved by Alfred H. Ames, that he and the said John M. Jameson rode in a carriage together, on the 20th of January, 1871, accompanying the corpse for interment, to Washington City; and then the caveators, proposed to ask the following question : “How the said John M. Jameson deported himself on the way to Washington, and what was his manner?” To which question the' caveatees objected, but the Court overruled the objection and allowed the question to be propounded to the witness ; in answer to which question the witness replied, “That his manner was jovial — more so than I thought was in keeping with the occasion.” To the admissibility of this testimony the caveatees objected, but the Court overruled the objection and permitted the evidence to he given to the jury. The caveatees excepted. Third Exception. — In the further progress of the trial, the caveators proved by one Thomas Perry, that the day after the decease of the testator, and when the corpse was in the house of the said John M. Jameson, the said witness and several other gentlemen, were together in the said house in conversation, (it being the 19th of January, 1871,) and the caveators by their counsel then asked the following question: “What was the manner of John M. Jameson on that occasion?” To which question the caveatees objected, but the Court overruled the objection and allowed the question to be propounded to the witness ; in answer to which question the witness replied, “That the said John M. Jameson was telling anecdotes, such as to create merriment, and such as were not fit to be repeated by the witness in the presence of ladies.” To the admissibility of this testimony the caveatees objected, but the Court overruled the objection and permitted the evidence to be given to the jury. The caveatees excepted. The verdict of the jury was for the caveatees on the first and second issues, and for the caveators on the third, fourth, fifth and sixth issues. Whereupon the caveatees filed motions for a new trial, and to set aside the verdict, with the reasons in support thereof. The Court overruled the motions, and the caveatees appealed Three exceptions were taken by the caveatees to the ruling of the Court, in regard to these motions, hut as they were not reviewed by this Court, it' is deemed unnecessary to set them out in full.