Others v. Watson

• Decision Date: 28 February 1853
• Docket Number: No. 10.,10.
• Citation: 13 Ga. 63
• Parties: Bryant Batton and others, plaintiffs in error. vs. Jacob Watson, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

13 Ga. 63

Bryant Batton and others, plaintiffs in error. vs. Jacob Watson, defendant in error.

No. 10.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

FEBRUARY TERM, 1853.

Application for letters of administration, in Houston Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers October Term, 1852.

The issue in this case arose on an application to the Court of Ordinary of Houston County, by Bryant Batton and Sarah H. Coalson, for letters of administration on the estate of Andrew J. Coalson. The application was resisted by Jacob Watson, on the ground that Coalson shortly before his death, made a will, a copy of which he proposed to prove and set up, alleging that Coalson, a short time before his death, and while he was sick, was forced and compelled by the threats of one Charles F. Patillo, his father-in-law, to destroy the original will.

On the trial, Joseph Tooke, who was left executor in the will, but who had previously renounced the executorship, was introduced as a witness, by the propounder of the will. Tooke swore, that, on the 24th of June, 1852, he was called on by Coalson, to make a will, which he wrote as Coalson dictated it. and which he read three or four times to Coalson. Witness then transcribed the will, adding one more clause, by the direction of Coalson, and which had been added to the draft in Court. The copy exhibited, was made from the original. On the 25th of June, on his return from his mill, the next day, witness found a note from Capers Patillo, requesting him to come to Coalson\'s, and bring the will with him, and while at supper a negro came and made the same request. Witness went to Coalson\'s house, and carried the will, which had been given him by Coalson. He found Dr. Patillo and his wife at Coalson\'s. Witness gave the will to Coalson at his request, who remarked that "Dr. Patillo had kicked up such a fuss, he would be compelled to destroy his will, and the law would have to be his will." Patillo demanded the right to read the will, which he did, and pronounced it "an unjust will, " and spoke in an angry tone, both to Coalson and witness. Coalson destroyed the will.

James K. Shine, a subscribing witness, testified, that Coalson was in his right mind, at the time of the execution of the will—thinks the copy exhibited and the original the same in substance.,

Lunsford Pitts, a subscribing witness, testified that Coalson was in his right mind, and knew of no influence used by Dr. Patillo in procuring him to destroy the will.

Alexander Everett, a subscribing witness, swore, that Coalson was of sound mind, and executed the will voluntarilv. Witness visited Coalson the next evening and was invited by Mrs. Patillo into the parlor; while there, heard loud and boisterous talk in the sick room, and recognized the voice to be that of Doctor Patillo; but could not distinguish what he said; when he went in to see Coalson, found Dr. Patillo in the room, who in a few minutes, invited witness to walk into the parlor with him.

Counsel for caveators then asked witness to state what took place between him and Dr. Patillo in the parlor, and what was said to him by the latter. To which question counsel for anplicants objected. The Court overruled the objection, and counsel for applicants excepted. The witness then stated, that after they had gone into another room, Dr. Patillo remarked, "that he had just understood that Coalson had made a will, cutting off Sarah (his daughter, and the wife of Coalson;) that it was not such a will as he had expected; that he wouldnot submit to it; that he would resist it at the threshold, and make Sarah sign away what was given to her, and would take her home and support her as he had done; that she should not have a dime of the property, and that he had said that much to Jack" (his son-in-law). Or. Patillo seemed excited.

On his cross-examination, witness stated, that he visited Coalson the next morning, and he seemed to be laboring under the impression that he had done his wife injustice in his will; was glad that Dr. Patillo had said to him what he had about the will; that he had destroyed it, and the law must be his will.

The copy of the will was then read in evidence to the Jury.

After the introduction of other evidence, not material to the decision of this Court, the Court below charged the Jury, "that if they were satisfied that there was such a pressure and restraint upon the deceased by Dr....