Willis v. Bozeman, 24866
| Decision Date | 07 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24866,24866 |
| Citation | 224 Ga. 729,164 S.E.2d 841 |
| Parties | Olin WILLIS et al. v. Sue BOZEMAN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Forgery may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
2. Where evidence is admitted solely for the purpose of impeachment it may not be used to itself support affirmative allegations of the pleadings.
3. A contention not supported by the record in this court presents nothing for decision.
4. Any error in permitting counsel to ask his witness leading questions is not ground for reversal unless there is an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
5. The usual general grounds of the motion for new trial having been expressly abandoned will not be passed upon.
The appeal arises from a proceeding to probate a will wherein the propounder was the scrivener and sole beneficiary. The caveat alleged forgery, undue influence, and lack of mental capacity to make a will as well as other grounds which were expressly abandoned by the caveators before the case was submitted to the jury in the superior court. The jury found for the propounder and thereafter the caveators' motion for new trial as amended was overruled.
John A. Rogers, Ashburn, for appellant.
Earl Staples, W. H. Stanford, Jr., Carrollton, for appellee.
1. The first special ground of the motion for new trial complains that the trial court erred in failing, even without request, to charge on forgery. This contention was made in the caveat. On the trial the propounder, who was the scrivener of the will, and the sole beneficiary, testified as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will as did the two witnesses. The testator was admitted to the hospital at approximately 5:30 or 6 o'clock in the evening after having suffered a stroke a day or two previously. After being examined in the emergency room he was admitted and placed in a room where he asked the propounder to write his will leaving her everything, that the will was written in longhand by the propounder, that it was read to the testator twice and he then stated that that was what he wanted, that he signed the will himself and that the witnesses then signed it. The caveators presented evidence of a physician who admitted the testator to the hospital. He testified that from the time the testator was admitted to the hospital he had only a 'glimmering of reason,' would only answer the simplest of questions with a yes or no answer after repeated prodding, and at 9:30 p.m., when he again examined the testator his mental condition was no better than when admitted and might have been 'slightly worse.' A nurse who was on duty at the hospital at the time the testator was admitted and until after the time the purported will was signed, testified that the testator could not perform the simplest task such as drinking water, undressing himself, turning on the light, etc., that he would not answer even the simplest question and in the opinion of the witness he could not sign his name at the time the will was purportedly signed.
While generally the method of proving forgery is the testimony of the signer himself that it is not his signature, or testimony of those familiar with his true signature, or experts, who make a comparison between the purported signature and those admitted to be authentic, yet evidence that the deceased signer was unable, mentally or physically, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. State
...failed to conduct a full general-grounds review of all of the evidence under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21. See Willis v. Bozeman , 224 Ga. 729, 731 (5), 164 S.E.2d 841 (1968) (where defendant abandoned general grounds of a motion for new trial, appellate court would not address general grounds......
-
Hudson v. State
...other fact, may be proved by circumstantial evidence." Stow v. Hargrove, 203 Ga. 735(5), 48 S.E.2d 454 (1948). Willis v. Bozeman, 224 Ga. 729, 730(1), 164 S.E.2d 841 (1968); Pratt v. State, 180 Ga.App. 389(1), 348 S.E.2d 922 (1986). Here, unlike in McGowan, supra, defendant was named as the......
-
Hartley v. State, A09A0956.
..."in either his motion for new trial or at the hearing on the motion for new trial") (emphasis supplied). Compare Willis v. Bozeman, 224 Ga. 729, 731(5), 164 S.E.2d 841 (1968) (defendant expressly abandoned general grounds as basis for motion for new trial); Ga.R. & Banking Co. v. Crossley &......
-
Woodall v. State
...and do not prove the facts stated therein. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Saul, 189 Ga. 1(9), 5 S.E.2d 214 (1939); Willis v. Bozeman, 224 Ga. 729, 731, 164 S.E.2d 841 (1968); Henry Grady Hotel v. Grady Motors, 96 Ga.App. 416, at 420, 100 S.E.2d (1957), and cits. See also Hill v. State, 232 G......