Estate of McKenna

SMITH, C.

Contest of will of deceased, after probate. The alleged will was olographic, and a portion of it, including the clause appointing the proponent executrix, follows the signature.

The grounds of contest set up in the petition of the contestants were in effect: That the alleged will “was not signed at the end thereof or at all by” the deceased; that it “was neither written, dated, nor signed by [her] hand”; that it “was not, and is not, the last will and testament, ... or a, or any, will or testament,” of said deceased; that at the time

[440]

of the execution, of the alleged will the deceased was mentally incompetent; and that the will was procured by undue influence.

The last two issues only were submitted to the jury, the forms of the issues and the findings of the jury thereon being as follows:

“ [Title of Court and Cause.]

“Issue I. Was Mary McKenna of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of the will in contest?

“Answer—Yes.

“The Jury.

“By H. J. Burns, foreman.”

“Issue II. Was Mary McKenna unduly influenced by Jane

Daly and

Thomas

Daly,

or either of them, or by any other person, in the execution of the will in contest?

“Answer—No.

“The Jury.

“By H. J. Burns, Foreman.”

No finding, judgment, order, or other decision of the court appears in the record, or is referred to in the bill of- exceptions ; and it is said by the appellants’ counsel in his brief, and in effect admitted by counsel for respondent, that there is none. The motion for new trial, the statement and affidavits on which it was made, and the order denying the motion all relate exclusively to the verdict of the jury.