Edwards v. Cash

• Decision Date: 10 February 1930
• Docket Number: 28362
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: EDWARDS v. CASH et al

126 So. 33

156 Miss. 507

EDWARDS v. CASH et al

No. 28362

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 10, 1930

Division A

Suggestion of Error Overruled, Feb. 21, 1930.

APPEAL from chancery court of Panola county, First district HON. N R. SLEDGE, Chancellor.

Application by Rosie Edwards for the probate of a paper purporting to be the will of Charlie Johnson, deceased, wherein J. H. Cash administrator, and others filed a contest. Judgment for contestants, and proponent appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. F. Dean, of Senatobia, for appellant.

Where in a will contest two prominent white men testified for contestants, over the objections of appellant, that the testator a short time before his death, assured each of them at different times and more than once, that he had no will, was not going to make a will and that he was afraid that some one would kill him for what he had if he did, this was a reversible error though the evidence was excluded after the testimony was closed. Sheenab v. Kearney, 82 Miss. 688; Miller v. Miller, 96 M. 526; Moore v. Parks, 122 Miss. 301.

The judge cannot delegate to the jury the determination as to the admissibility of evidence.

Holmes v. State, 146 Miss. 351; Holly v. State, 144 Miss. 726; Ingram v. State, 146 Miss. 303; Peters v. State, 106 Miss. 333; Markin v. State, 138 Miss. 740; 22 C. J. 452; Archer v. Helm, 70 Miss. 889.

Herbert Holmes, of Senatobia, and Herbert Fant, of Sardis, for appellees.

If illegal evidence be admitted, the error will be cured by a declaration of the court to the jury to disregard it.

Herndon v. Henderson, 41 Miss. 584; Heyman v. Dillard, 1 Miss. Dec. 195; Jones on Evidence (3 Ed.), par. 895; Penn. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 141; Alabama R. R. v. Frazier, 30 Am. St. Rep. 28, 9 So. 303; Sullens v. Chicago R. R., 7 Am. St. Rep. 501.

One cannot assign for error the action of the trial court in giving an instruction for the opposite side, when he asked for and obtained as announcing the law of the case, an instruction to the same effect.

Liverpool etc., v. Van Os., 63 Miss. 431; 56 Am. Rep. 13 So. 810; Watson v. Zook, 69 Miss. 351; N. O. M. & C. R. R. Co. v. Cole, 101 Miss. 173, 57 So. 556; 146 Miss. 793, 110 So. 833.

The jury are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and their verdict will not be disturbed on the ground of alleged error in this respect.

Lea v. Guice, 13 S. & M. 656; Riggs case, 30 Miss. 635; Holden v. Bolxom, 35 Miss. 381; Standly v. Miles, 36 Miss. 434; Prince v. Crawford, 50 Miss. 344; Stovall v. Bank, 8 S. & M. 305, 47 Am. Dec. 85; Jones on Evidence (3 Ed.), par. 991; Hemming v. Rawlings, 144 Miss. 643, 110 So. 118; G. M. & N. R. R. v. Seymore, 148 Miss. 456, 114 So. 35.

Argued orally by J. F. Dean, for appellant, and by Herbert M. Holmes and Herbert Fant, for appellee.

OPINION

McGowen, J.

The appellant, Rosie Edwards, presented for probate, in solemn form, a paper purporting to be the will of Charlie Johnson, deceased, and made the administrator of the decedent's estate and Annie Johnson, his wife and the only heir, parties to the proceeding, the latter being appellees here. Answer was filed, denying that the paper was the last will and testament of the deceased; that it was executed as the statute requires, or that it was attested by credible witnesses--in short, alleged that the paper was a forgery. The issue, being made up as above indicated, was submitted by the court to the jury, who returned a verdict for the contestants appellees here; and from the judgment entered on said verdict an appeal is prosecuted here.

The will presented is as follows:

"In the Year of Our Lord.

December 17, 1919.

"I, Charlie Johnson in the county of Panola in State of Mississippi. Being of sound mind and memory, and understanding do make my last will and testament in manner and form following first I give devise an bequeath to my wife Annie and my Neath Rossie Edwards all of my possession or estate to be divided equal.

Charlie X Johnson.

"witness Lonza Lee Edwards

"Mahala Tankson"

The evidence shows that Charlie Johnson, a negro, died in January, 1929, and left a considerable estate. The proponent, Rosie Edwards, was Johnson's niece, and had been reared by him. Johnson executed the will mentioned on the day of his marriage to the contestant, Annie Johnson, and at that time Rosie Edwards was also married.

The names of the persons who signed themselves as attesting witnesses are Lonza Lee Edwards, a stepson of the proponent, and Mahala Tankson. Mahala Tankson was served with process to attend the court as a witness a few days before the convening of court, but did not appear, and no delay of the trial of the cause was asked on that account.

Ben Edwards, a brother of Lonza Lee Edwards, testified that he was present when Charlie Johnson executed the will, and saw the witnesses named sign it, but that he did not sign as a witness, because he could not write his name.

Lonza Lee Edwards was called as a witness in July, 1929, and stated on the trial of the case at that time that he was twenty-one years of age, but that when the will was executed he was only twelve years old. When objection was raised by counsel for contestant as to this witness' credibility or competency as an attesting witness to the execution of the will, the court reserved a ruling, but, at the conclusion of all the evidence, if offered to counsel on both sides to pass on all reservations made during the trial, and did pass upon several. Upon asking counsel if they had any further objections upon which it should pass, no response was made.

Counsel for appellant, proponent in the court below, secured an instruction in the language of the statute as to execution of wills, with the following further statement: "The court further instructs the jury that the word credible means competent and the question of competency relates to the time of the attestation and that the jury are the sole judges of whether or not the evidence preponderates in establishing whether the witness to the will was competent or credible on December 17, 1919, when said will is alleged to have been executed."

Counsel for appellees, the contestants in the court below, procured from the court similar instructions.

We do not think it is necessary to consider the other assignments of error, as no new propositions of law are presented, and they are without merit. The assignment which we shall consider is "the court erred in submitting to the jury the question of the competency of a witness when that is the sole province of the judge. That the court cannot delegate its power to determine this question has been settled so long and so often that it is almost useless to submit authorities on that point." Let it be remembered that the witness when presented to testify in the case was twenty-one years of age, and no question of his competency as a witness to deliver evidence in a trial was raised. The precise question as we understand the record, is that, at the time of the execution of the will, one of the attesting witnesses was a child under fourteen years of age--about twelve years old at the time of attesting; that the presumption was that he was incompetent to testify as a witness or attest a will. This presents a very interesting and serious question, as the appellant did not offer evidence in support of the witness' competency save his own statement as a witness on the witness...