
    Wilkey’s Appeal.
    1. The fact that the widow of a decedent is illiterate, and over seventy years of age, does not deprive her of her statutory preferred right to letters of administration on the estate of her husband, where she appeared to have “ as good business capacity as the ordinary run of farmers’ wives.” Bowersox’s Appeal, 4 Out., 434, followed.
    2. On an appeal from the refusal of the Orphans’ Court to order the revocation of letters of administration granted by the Register of Wills, the Supreme Court will not review the discretion of the Register in granting such letters unless it appears that his discretion was abused, or his duty was manifestly disregarded.
    3 On an appeal in a case such as the above, evidence offered by the appellant to show errors in the inventory filed by the administratrix and to show the extent of the decedent’s estate and the position of the heirs in regard to a certain contest pending about it, is irrelevant and inadmissible.
    February 2d, 1885.
    Before Mercue, C. J., Gordon, Paxson, Trtjnkey, Sterrett, Green and Clark, JJ.
    Certiorari to and Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Fay~ ette County: Of July Term, 1884, No. 169.
    This was an appeal by John Wilkey and Henry Wilkey, from a decree of said court dismissing their appeal from the .decision of the Register of Wills granting letters of administration upon the estate of James Wilkey, deceased, (appeL lant’s father) to Catharine Wilkey his widow.
    James Wilkey, an aged farmer, died intestate, possessed of an estate real and personal valued at about 140,000, leaving to, survive him a widow and four children, the youngest of whom, Philip, had resided with his father during the latter years of his life. Prior to the old man’s death, the other children had caused a proceeding in lunacy to be instituted, alleging as evidence of insanity, that he had made certain agreements with his son Philip under undue influence and weakness of mind, whereby the latter acquired a claim to the bulk of his property in consideration of his maintaining his father, which consideration was grossly inadequate, &c. These proceedings were pending at the time of decedent’s death.
    The demand of the widow for letters of administration to be granted to her was supported by Philip, but was opposed by John and Henry on the ground that she was aged, illiterate, unduly influenced by Philip, and generally incompetent to administer the estate. The Register decided otherwise, and issued the letters to her. Thereupon John and Henry appealed from the Register’s decision to the Orphans’ Court. The grounds of tbe appeal were set forth in the petition as follows:—
    1st. The said Catharine is more than seventy-eight years old and is unable to read or write English.-
    2nd. The said Catharine is unacquainted with business and money matters and incapable of discharging the duties of the said administration.
    3d. The said Catharine is unduly influenced and controlled by the said Philip Wilkey.
    4th. The duty of the said administrator will be to contest the validity of numerous transfers and assignments of personal property and choses in action made by the said James to the said Philip through fraud and undue influence exercised by the said Philip, to the damage of your petitioners, and the said Catharine positively declared to the said Register before the said letters were granted to her, that' she would not carry on any lawsuit or litigation against the said Philip.
    5th. The said letters,of administration should be granted to a stranger.
    The answer of the administratrix set forth that “ she has faithfully performed her duties as administratrix, in accordance with the requirements of the oath she took when entering upon said duties; that she has filed a true inventory of said estate, had a sale, and filed in the proper office a true return thereof; that she has given a bond in the sum of two thousand dollars for the faithful performance of her duties, and that the allegation in the appellants’ petition that your respondent is unduly influenced by her son Philip, is wholly untrue, and that the further statement that your respondent said before the Register that she would not carry on any lawsuit, or litigation against Philip, is also wholly untrue; as your petitioner then and now says she will do her whole duty as administratrix of the said estate.”
    The testimony showed that Mrs. Wilkey was over seventy years of age and illiterate, but “she has as good business capacity as the ordinary run of farmers’ wives.”' “She is just as competent to settle James Wilkey’s estate as any other woman — no woman would be ordinarily. If she could read and write she would have to have an attorney.” There was a conflict of testimony on most of the questions involved.
    The appellants in the court below offered to show by a witness (1) that the inventory and appraisement filed by the administratrix is not correct, and offers to prove certain items of personal property belonging to the said estate which are omitted from the said inventory for the purpose of showing that the administration of the estate so far, has not been properly done.” (2) to show the entire extent of James Wilkey’s real estate, and the position of the heirs in regard to a certain contest pending about it.
    Offers objected to as irrelevant; objections sustained, and evidence excluded. Exception. (First and second assignments of error).
    Tbe court dismissed tbe appeal from tbe Register, and confirmed tbe grant of letters of administration to tbe widow. John and Henry Wilkey thereupon took this appeal, assigning for error tbe exclusion of tbe above offers of testimony and tbe decree.
    
      Edward Campbell, for tbe appellant.
    
      3 3. Lindsey, for tbe appellee.
   Tbe opinion of tbe court was filed February 16th, 1885.

Pee, Curiam.

The principal complaint is the refusal of tbe court to revoke tbe letters of administration granted to tbe appellee.

It is tbe duty of tbe Register to grant letters of administration to such one entitled as be shall judge will best administer tbe estate. Other things being equal tbe widow is entitled to be preferred. Unless tbe legal discretion of tbe Register appears to have been abused, or his duty manifestly disregarded, we will not review bis selection. We discover no such conduct in tbe present case. Tbe appellee appears to possess the necessary qualifications; Bowersox’s Appeal, 4 Out., 434. Tbe evidence offered was correctly refused.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at tbe costs of tbe appellants.  