Roche v. Wegge
| Decision Date | 24 March 1902 |
| Docket Number | 285 |
| Citation | 202 Pa. 169,51 A. 738 |
| Parties | Roche, Appellant, v. Wegge |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 24, 1902
Appeal, No. 285, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Wayne Co., Oct. T., 1900, No. 64, on verdict for defendant in case of John F. Roche v. Mary Wegge and Barbara Slattery. Affirmed.
Issue devisavit vel non. Before PURDY, P.J.
At the trial evidence offered by the contestants showed that the testator was seventy years old when he made his will, that he did not at that time recognize members of his own family that he did not understand what property he owned, and was manifestly unfit to attend to business.
Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence, and the submission of the case to the jury.
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Everett Warren, of Willard, Warren & Knapp, with him F P. Kimble, for appellant.
L. M Atkinson, with him A. T. Searle and H. Wilson, for appellee.
Before McCOLLUM, C.J., MITCHELL, DEAN, BROWN and MESTREZAT, JJ.
William Roche resided with his daughter in the village of Hawley, Wayne county, and in December, 1895, at the age of seventy made his will and died four years later. John F. Roche, the only son of the testator, was the principal beneficiary and the executor named in the will. He was a hotel keeper and lived in the city of Scranton, in another county, and about forty miles distant from Hawley. The will was written in Scranton by direction of the son and by his attorney, and, after its execution, remained in his possession until his father's death. The testator had two daughters, Mrs. Mary Wegge and Mrs. Barbara Slattery. The will was admitted to probate on September 20, 1899, by the register of wills of Wayne county. From the decree of the register admitting the will to probate, the daughters appealed to the orphans' court alleging as the basis of their appeal, testamentary incapacity and undue influence. Testimony was taken by an examiner and after full consideration thereof, the court issued its precept to the common pleas of Wayne county directing an issue to be formed to determine (a) whether the decedent, William Roche, was of sound and disposing mind and memory upon December 9, 1895, the date of the execution of the paper above mentioned, purporting to be his last will and testament; and (b) whether the execution of the said instrument was the voluntary act of William Roche and not procured by undue influence of John F. Roche and others. In that issue it was directed that John F. Roche, the executor and proponent, be made plaintiff and Mrs. Wegge and Mrs. Slattery, the contestants, be the defendants.
The issues of fact sent for determination to the common pleas were duly tried in that court before a jury resulting in a verdict for the defendants, the contestants, -- the jury, by direction of the court, finding specially, on the question raised in each of the two issues. The case was carefully and patiently tried, occupying the time of the court and jury for four days. Reasons for a new trial were filed by the plaintiff and a rule on the defendants was granted to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and the case should not be retried. After deliberate and very careful consideration for seven months, the learned trial judge refused a new trial and discharged the rule. In his desire for a speedy determination of the cause, the plaintiff entered an appeal to this court nearly five months before a judgment was entered in the court below from which an appeal would lie. He presents forty assignments of error with an argument of seventy-three pages for our consideration.
The case was elaborately and exhaustively tried in the common pleas. The record shows that every possible technical objection to the admission of testimony was taken and with so little merit in many of them that counsel did not insist upon a ruling by the court. The effect was to incumber the record with useless and immaterial matter and to confuse the jury in the hearing and consideration of the case. The plaintiff certainly has no reason to complain that he was not afforded ample opportunity to meet the issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial