
    Krueger, Appellant, vs. Krueger, Administrator, Respondent.
    
      January 10
    
    January 30, 1906.
    
    
      'Wills: Prolate: Contest: Mental competency: Appeal: Findings, when disturbed.
    
    Where the only questions argued in the supreme court are the mental competency of the testator and the legality of execution of a will, and there is no clear preponderance of evidence against the findings thereon made hy the trial court, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Oconto county: S. D. HASTINGS, Circuit Judge.
    
      A'ffirmed.
    
    Mary S. Erueger, a widow, having five children, and possessing about $3,500 worth of property, all personal, on March 15,1904, the day before her death, executed a will, as follows:
    “First. I give and bequeath to my son Albert W. Krueger three hundred dollars.
    “Second. Christian and Mary and Frederick and Annie to receive the balance of the money and mortgages belonging to me in equal shares.
    “Third. My horse and buggy, cutter, and cow, and harness, and all my household furniture and piano and pictures, I give to my daughter Annie J. W. Erueger.” ■
    This will was drawn by a neighboring justice of the peace, D. E. "Whiting, and claimed to have been signed by testatrix in presence of himself and Mary L. Whiting, who subscribed as witnesses. The will was contested by Albert W. Krueger on three grounds: (1) Want of testamentary capacity; (2) indefiniteness and uncertainty; and (3) absence of statutory execution. There was evidence offered and contradicted as to existence and degree of diabetic coma and of diabetic blindness and as to the subscription by the two witnesses mentioned in the presence of the testatrix, and by D. E. Whiting in the presence of Mary L. Whiting"; also, generally, as to the mental condition and capacity of the testatrix at and about tbe moment of execution. Tbe court filed a careful opinion analyzing tbe evidence on these various subjects and made finding that testatrix was conrpetent, tbat by tbe surrounding facts proved tbe will was definite and certain, and tbat it was executed in all respects as required by law. Whereupon'tbe judgment of tbe county court admitting said will to probate was affirmed, witb costs against tbe contestant, from wbicb judgment said contestant appeals to tbis court.
    Tbe cause was submitted for tbe appellant on tbe brief of Francis X. Morrow, attorney, and Sheridan & Evans, of counsel, and for tbe respondent on tbat of Olasson & Glasson.
    
   Dodge, J.

Tbe only questions argued in tbis court are mental competency and tbe legality of execution. These are pure questions of fact, and we find no clear preponderance of evidence against tbe findings tbereon made by tbe trial court. Indeed, not enough to so reasonably justify appellant in expectation of a favorable result upon tbe appeal tbat we should order his costs paid out-of tbe estate. Sucb being the case, we cannot overturn those findings, which fully support the judgment.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.  