In re Beck's Estate

• Decision Date: 28 April 1914
• Docket Number: 11,604.
• Citation: 140 P. 340,79 Wash. 331
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: In re BECK'S ESTATE.

140 P. 340

79 Wash. 331

In re BECK'S ESTATE.

No. 11,604.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 28, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Whitman County; R. L McCrosky, Judge.

Contest of the will of Annie Beck, deceased, after its admission to probate, between Samuel Beck and others against John F. Beck and another. Judgment for contestees, and contestants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Hanna &amp Hanna, of Colfax, and Fred E. Helwig, of Malden, for respondents.

MOUNT J.

This action is a contest of a will. The will was executed by Annie Beck, deceased, and was admitted to probate by the superior court of Whitman county on March 1, 1912. Thereafter, in September, 1912, the contestants filed a petition, contesting the will of the deceased upon the following grounds: Undue influence upon the testatrix by John F. Beck and Joseph W Beck, sons of the deceased, and the principal beneficiaries under the will; that the will was not executed as required by law; that the testatrix at the time of executing the will did not have sufficient mental capacity to execute the same; that she did not know and did not understand the contents of the instrument; that the will was written in the English language, which the testatrix could not speak or understand; that the will was not translated to her; that she did not sign the will, or request any one to sign it for her; and that it was not her will. Issues were made up upon these questions, and the case was tried to the court without a jury. After the evidence offered on behalf of the contestants was before the court, the court dismissed the action. This appeal followed.

It was clearly shown by the evidence of the contestants that the testatrix, at the time she made the will, was 73 years of age; that she had lived in the vicinity where the will was made for a long period of years; that she did not understand or speak the English language, her native tongue being Bohemian; and that she could not carry on a conversation either in German or English.

The Will was prepared by one Helwig, an attorney, and was executed by the testatrix in the presence of two witnesses. She was not able to write her name, but signed the will by making a cross. The will was read to her in English by one of the attesting witnesses, and, when asked if she understood it she said, 'Yes.' She was asked several questions, and to each she simply answered, 'Yes.' She may or may not have understood the questions, but it is apparent from the evidence which is brought here that she did not understand the English language, and certainly did not understand the will when it was read to her. If the will was not explained to her in her native tongue, she clearly did not know the contents of it.

The principal contention of the contestants upon the trial was that the will was not the will of the testatrix, because she did not understand the English language, and did not understand what was being said when the will was being read to her. During the trial, one Helwig, the attorney who drew the will, was upon the witness stand, and was asked the question: 'Q. At whose request did you draft it?' This question was objected to upon the grounds the it was immaterial and irrelevant, and not responsive to any issue in the action, and that it was privileged. The court sustained the objection upon the ground that the testimony was immaterial. The contestants then offered to prove that the witness 'was employed by and was requested by John and Joe Beck, the principal beneficiaries of the instrument admitted in this court as the last will of Annie Beck, deceased, and that they gave him the information from which the will was drawn by him, and that all the information that he had was derived from one or the other or both of those parties, and from no other source.' This offer was objected to, and the objection was sustained. We think the court erred in rejecting this evidence. As above stated, the principal points relied upon by the contestants were that...