Chambers v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 05 February 1912
• Parties: CHAMBERS et al. v. ELLIOTT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

143 S.W. 521

CHAMBERS et al. v. ELLIOTT.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 5, 1912.

Rehearing Denied February 19, 1912.

1. WILLS (§ 54)—INSANITY OF TESTATOR— EVIDENCE.

Though, in an action to contest a will, testimony that the testator had made a violent assault on his brother was offered to show insanity, a record of a justice of the peace showing that the testator was acquitted of the charge was inadmissible in rebuttal, as the record was not required to state the cause of the acquittal, and the defense might have been insanity or self-defense, the mode of which would have disclosed a disordered mind.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1015)—REVIEW— MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.

A court on appeal will defer more to the action of the trial court in granting a new trial than in refusing it.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vernon County; B. G. Thurman, Judge.

Action by William L. Chambers and others against A. E. Elliott. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. E. Elliott, for appellant. A. J. King and H. C. Clark, for respondents.

ELLISON, J.

This action involves the contest of a will on the ground of insanity of the testator. The verdict of the jury in the trial court was in favor of the validity of the will. A motion for new trial was filed and was sustained, whereupon defendant appealed from that order.

Two grounds were stated by the circuit court for granting a new trial. One of them was that error was committed in admitting improper evidence. The record of a justice of the peace showing that the testator was acquitted of a charge of assault and battery on his brother Lewis was allowed to be introduced over the objection of plaintiffs. As a part of the evidence to show insanity, testimony that the testator had made a violent assault on his brother was offered, and we assume that the record of the justice showing his acquittal was to neutralize that showing. It was not competent evidence. If he was acquitted on the plea of self-defense, that would not show that he was not insane. His very mode of defense might have disclosed a disordered mind. Furthermore, his acquittal might have been on the ground of insanity. It does not so appear, but it is not required that the record of trial before a justice shall state the cause of the acquittal. More than that, the chief witness to the assault said she did not see it, and an objection to her testimony on the ground of hearsay was sustained.

We defer to the trial court in granting...