
    Patterson against Patterson.
    
      Monday, May 29.
    The issue of devisavit vel non, involves ¡:b® executum not its con-but so tentehaveT" bearing on the question of ex-eeution, they ^connection . *yea°lee0'f conspiracy betber aIH] moI of fraud and ihtFtesiator’s1 came by tiie vateiVie, aa‘j she practised her to consent that it shoul<t be converted p°l“¿ñTiVs-lí> tate, iscoto-
    THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of York _ _ county, in an issue of devisavit vel non, formed to try the validity of a paper set up as the last will of John Patterson, deceased, in which several bills of exceptions to the 7 7 1 mission of evidence, were sealed by the Court, and ed with the record.
    After the plaintiff below, who was also the plaintiff in error, had gone through his evidence, the defendant, who was the testator’s widow, to whom he only bequeathed, “ her gold watch, with all her wearing apparel, her saddle and bridle, and her spinning wheel and reel,” while he gave the whole of the residue of his estate to his own family, offered to prove, that the asserted will had been obtained by the father, mother, and family of the devisor, by a conspiracy between them, and by fraud and imposition on his wife ; and in connection with this, offered to prove, that the • whole estate was derived from the testator’s wife; to establish which, the will of George Lewis Lejler, was offered, togegether with evidence of the value of his estate, arid deeds, of release from John Patterson and Elizabeth, his wife, to Mary Lefler, and from Mary Lefter, to them. J J j j ■>
    
    An objection was made by the plaintiff’s counsel, to the admission of this testimony, but the Court permitted it to go to the jury, who found a verdict in favour of the defendant.
    
      Cassat and Buchanan, for the plaintiff in error,
    insisted that if any part of the evidence was improperly recéived, the judgment must be reversed; that as the issue in the present instance, was on fraud in the execution of the will, nothing should have been admitted, which was not pertinent to that issue; that however unreasonable the disposition of the property might have been, the source from which it was .derived, and the manner in which it was disposed of, afforded no inference of fraud, in the execution of the instrument, by which it was devised. The evidence was therefore irrelevant.
    The Court declined hearing the counsel for the defendant in error.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gibson J.

Where a will is impeached for imbecility o£ mind in the testator, together with fraudulent practices by the devisees, the intrinsic evidence of the will itself, arising from the unreasonableness or injustice of its provisions, taking into view the state of the testator’s property, family, and the claims of particular individuals, is competent and proper for the consideration of the jury. The issue of devisavit ~oel non involves the validity of the execution, and not the contents ; yet the contents, as far as they have a bearing on the question of execution, are pertinent, and with this view, the whole will is usually read. But the particular provisions of the will could have no practical influence on the question, without evidence of the circumstances and condition of the testator’s family and property; for it is only by a comparison of these with each other, that an inference arises, as to the sanity of his mind, and its freedom of action. To justify a jury in invalidating a will, from its intrinsic evidence only, would require an extreme case, perhaps such as never can occur; but the disposition of the property, may be so utterly absurd or unjust, as to induce a reasonable belief, that no man in his senses, and uncontrolled by an improper influence, would make it; and there may heneases, where this internal evidence, added to other proof, which would of itself, leave the question doubtful, ought to turn the scale. In fact, the evidence of practice on the intellects of a weak man, is usually compounded of ingredients so various in their nature, and remote in their consequences and connection, that the question of relevancy, is often of very difficult solution. In such a case, the Court should lean in favour of admitting the evidence, to enable the jury to judge from a consideration of all the circumstances. Here the testator ordered, that his wife should have “ her gold watch, with all her wearing apparel, her saddle and bridle, with her spinning wheel and reel;” and this is the whole provision that is made for her. In connection with evidence of a conspiracy between the father and mother of the testator, and in connection with evidence of fraud and imposition on the testator’s wife, the defendant offered to shew, that the estate came by the wife, that it.was valuable, and that she had been practised upon, to induce her to consent, that it should be turned from real to personal estate, to give the testator a disposing power over it. How far this should operate, to shew feebleness of mind in the testator, or imposition on him by his father and mother, is not for present consideration : but as a conspiracy was offered to be proved, and as these were circumstances connected with it, which might, at least, explain its motive and object, we cannot say, the evidence was altogether impertinent. Taken in connection with other matters, it may have had a very powerful, and very proper influence, on the event of the cause ; and we think it was rightly submitted to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.  