Eason v. Williams
| Decision Date | 28 October 1975 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rose Marie EASON v. Earl I. WILLIAMS, Executor (ESTATE of John H. CARTER), et al. |
Howard A. Jacobs, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
Morris Melnick, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Victor M. Gordon, New Haven, for appellee (named defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
The plaintiff filed a motion for appeal from probate on October 5, 1970, returnable to the Superior Court. The motion alleged that the plaintiff was an heir-at-law of the deceased and that she was aggrieved by an order of the court granting the application for probate of the will of the deceased, John H. Carter. The named defendant filed a plea in abatement denying that the plaintiff was an heir-at-law. The court sustained the plea in abatement from which the plaintiff has appealed.
The only errors briefed by the plaintiff relate to the court's discretion in restricting the cross-examination of a witness and its refusal to allow an exhibit into evidence at the hearing on the plea in abatement.
On direct examination, the named defendant testified to a conversation he had with the deceased in which the deceased told the defendant that the plaintiff was his stepdaughter and that the value of the estate was about $30,000. On cross-examination, the named defendant testified that the deceased executed his will while he was ill in a veterans hospital, and that he subsequently died from that illness. At this point the inventory of the estate, which was considerably more than $30,000, was offered by the plaintiff. The offer was denied by the court because the size of the inventory was not relevant to whether the plaintiff was either a daughter or a stepdaughter. The plaintiff claimed, in essence, that such evidence would indicate that the state of mind of the deceased which made him incapable of making an accurate representation of the size of the estate would also render him incapable of making an accurate representation of the relationship between himself and the plaintiff. After this ruling, on cross-examination, the named defendant was asked the percentage of the residuary estate left to a particular heir. The named defendant's objection concerning the relevancy of the question was sustained and an exception was taken. The claim of admission was that 'certain of the things put in the will were Mr. Williams' idea and not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Piskorski
...and the fact in issue. This question of relevancy must be determined according to reason and judicial experience." Eason v. Williams, 169 Conn. 589, 591, 363 A.2d 1090, 1091. The testimony of Woodward tended to show that the distance between the Chamberland residence and the murder scene wa......
-
State v. Bryant
... ... Eason v. Williams, 169 Conn. 589, 591, 363 A.2d 1090 [1975]; State v. Towles, 155 Conn. 516, 523, 235 A.2d 639 [1967].' State v. Runkles, 174 Conn ... ...
-
State v. Gold
...and the question must be determined in each case according to the teachings of reason and judicial experience. Eason v. Williams, 169 Conn. 589, 591, 363 A.2d 1090 (1975); State v. Towles, 155 Conn. 516, 523, 235 A.2d 639 (1967)." State v. Runkles, 174 Conn. 405, 413, 389 A.2d 730, cert. de......
-
State v. Periere
...and the question must be determined in each case according to the teachings of reason and judicial experience. Eason v. Williams, 169 Conn. 589, 591, 363 A.2d 1090 (1975); State v. Towles, 155 Conn. 516, 523, 235 A.2d 639 (1967).' State v. Runkles, 174 Conn. 405, 413, 389 A.2d 730, cert. de......