Springfield v. Steen

• Decision Date: 22 May 1911
• Parties: SPRINGFIELD v. STEEN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

138 S.W. 453

99 Ark. 241

SPRINGFIELD v. STEEN

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 22, 1911

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; F. Guy Fulk, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

J. P Steen died in the city of Little Rock, in Pulaski County leaving a will. When the will was offered for probate appellants appeared in the probate court as contestants. The will was admitted to probate in common form, and the contestants duly prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. The case was tried before a jury in the circuit court, and there was a verdict in favor of the proponent of the will. To reverse the judgment rendered upon the verdict, the contestants have appealed to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Bratton & Fraser, for appellant.

J. W. Blackwood, for the estate; W. T. Tucker, for a devisee under the will.

OPINION

HART, J., (after stating the facts).

The will was contested on the ground that the testator was not of sound and disposing mind and memory, and also that the execution of the will was procured by undue influence. The jury, by its verdict, found these issues against the appellants, and their counsel concede that in this respect the verdict was warranted by the evidence, but they seek a reversal of the judgment on other grounds.

They first question the sufficiency of the proof of the execution of the will. The testimony on this point is abstracted by appellant. E. B. Matthews and W. T. Hale were the subscribing witnesses to the will. They testified in detail as to the facts and circumstances connected with the execution of the will. Counsel for appellants urge that the testimony of the subscribing witnesses was vague and contradictory, and in consequence does not fulfill the requirements of the statute in making the proof necessary to show the execution of the will. We can not agree with their contention. A careful consideration of their testimony as a whole shows that they were present when the will was executed by request of the testator as subscribing witnesses; that the will was read over by the testator and understood by him before he signed it; and that they then signed it as subscribing witnesses.

Counsel for appellants next contend that the court erred both in admitting and excluding certain testimony; and in allowing counsel for appellee to make certain remarks which were calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury. On these assignments of error, counsel for appellee insist that the appellants have failed to file a sufficient abstract as required by rule 9 of this court, and for the failure thereof ask that the judgment be affirmed. The rule requires that the appellant shall file an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary for a full understanding of all questions presented to the court for decision. Counsel for appellants have set out in full their motion for a new trial, which contains 141 assignments of error; but they have not made an abstract. This is not a compliance with the rule. They should have made an abstract or abridgment of the transcript, showing the matters relied upon for a reversal. Otherwise the judges, singly or together, must examine or explore the transcript to ascertain if the assignments of error appear in the record, and also their connection with other parts thereof; and this we are not required to do. Such proceeding would entail unnecessary labor upon the judges, and would greatly retard the work of the court.

It is true that counsel for appe...