Hoffman v. Joachim

• Decision Date: 17 October 1893
• Citation: 86 Wis. 188,56 N.W. 636
• Parties: HOFFMAN v. JOACHIM.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

86 Wis. 188

56 N.W. 636

HOFFMAN

v.JOACHIM.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 17, 1893.

Appeal from circuit court, Ozaukee county; A. Scott Sloan, Judge.

Contest by Wilhelmina Hoffman of the will of Henry Christian, deceased, presented for probate by Leopold E. Joachim, the executor therein named. The will, made very shortly before testator's death, gave contestant, his daughter by his second wife, one dollar. The homestead was devised to Bertha Hilgendorf, daughter of his elder daughter Hannah, and the residue was left in equal portions to said Hannah and her three daughters, the said Bertha. Martha Sauer, and Theresa Hilgendorf. Contestant charged that the Hilgendorfs had alienated her father's affections from her, and indulged his drunken habits until he was mentally incapacitated. It appeared that contestant's mother had obtained a divorce and alimony from testator. The county court admitted the will to probate. From the judgment of the circuit court affirming the judgment below, contestant appeals. Affirmed.Eugene S. Turner, for appellant.

James F. Trottman, for respondent.

WINSLOW, J.

The appellant contests the probate of the will of one Henry Christian on the ground of mental incapacity and undue influence. The will was admitted to probate by the county court, and upon appeal this judgment was affirmed in the circuit court. A jury was called in an advisory capacity in the circuit court, but on the conclusion of the testimony the circuit judge excused the jury, and made findings sustaining the will. We have read the testimony, and are satisfied that the circuit judge was entirely right in his disposition of the case. It is entirely unnecessary to detail the evidence. The contestant offered her husband generally as a witness, and an objection thereto was sustained. This ruling was right. If there was any matter upon which the husband was a competent witness it should have been stated when the offer was made. Blabon v. Gilchrist, 67 Wis. 38, 29 N. W. Rep. 220. Numerous exceptions were taken to rulings of the court excluding evidence. Possibly some of the questions should have been answered, but, even if answered favorably to contestant, they could not change the result. No discussion of them is necessary. Judgment affirmed.