14 N.Y.S. 434 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1891
Lead Opinion
An examination of the papers read on the respondent’s motion to dismiss this appeal has led us to the conclusion that the motion should be denied, and that the appellant should be permitted to prosecute her appeal. This brings us to the consideration of the questions involved on the appeal from an order denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial, and from a judgment confirming the verdict and appointing a committee of the person and estate of the appellant. The jury, by its verdict, found that the appellant was “insane. Without intervals. She is incapable, by reason of infirmity caused by paralysis of July 11, 1887, to govern herself, or manage her affairs, or properly care for her land, tenements, goods, and chattels. ” It also found that such infirmity dated from July 11,1887, and that it manifested itself “by a defective memory, delusion, and alienated property.” The principal question decided by the jury was whether the appellant was of unsound mind, so that she was incapable of governing herself, or managing her property. The question was whether she was so incompetent at the time of the trial. If it were admitted that by reason of her sickness, which commenced July 11, 1887, she was .for several days or weeks incapable of governing herself or managing her affairs, still if at the time of the trial she had recovered, and her competency was so far restored that she was then able to govern herself and manage her business, she could not be adjudged a lunatic, or deprived of the management of herself, her property, and her affairs. A careful study of the evidence contained in the appeal-book seems to lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the proof was insufficient to justify the jury in finding that the appellant was at the time of the trial of unsound mind, and incapable of governing herself or managing her affairs and property. While it may be said that there was some evidence that soon after her attack of paralysis, and during the earlier days of her sickness,, she manifested apparent delusions of mind, still the evidence demonstrates quite clearly that they were only the delusions or fancies of a sick-bed, and that they passed away as she improved in health and strength. Indeed, when the whole evidence upon the question of such alleged delusions is carefully considered, it is rendered quite doubtful if even when her disease was at its height there was any real or substantial delusion existing in the mind of the appellant. A delusion is a belief in a state or condition of things, the existence of which no rational person would believe. The evidence to show that the appellant at any time really believed any of the pretended delusions is very meager, to say the least; but perhaps it was sufficient to justify the jury in finding that
Our attention is also called to other errors, -which seem to require a reversal in this case. On the trial, a physician, who was called as a witness for the petitioner, was permitted to testify, under the objection and exception of the appellant, that she had not sufficient mental strength to manage her estate or conduct the business connected with it. In Re Arnold, 14 Hun, 525, where a physician was called as a witness, and permitted to testify that the testator was not possessed of testamentary capacity, it was held error, and-the decree was reversed. If it is not competent for an expert witness to testify to want; of sufficient capacity to make a will it must be incompetent for such a witness to testify to the absence of sufficient capacity to manage an estate. The principle of that case is decisive of the question. We think the evidence should have been excluded. Able C. Benedict was called as an expert witness by the petitioner. The appellant sought by cross-examination to show that the witness procured admission to the house where the appellant was living, so that he might become a witness, by fraudulent and improper means, without the consent and against the will of those there present, and in the absence of her attending physician, whom they desired to have present. This evidence was objected to by the petitioner, and excluded by the court. Its purpose was to show the means adopted by Benedict to make himself a witness in the case. On the cross-examination of a witness the party should be allowed to show whatever may indicate the probable relations between the witness and the party, and whether they be friendly or unfriendly is always admissible for the purpose of affecting the degree of credit which his evidence should receive. Wallace v. Marks, 13 Wkly. Dig. 399. A witness may be asked any question tending to show that he is not impartial, and, if he denies the facts suggested, he may be contradicted. Steph. Dig. Ev. 186. A witness may be required to explain whatever would show bias on his part. 1 Whart. Ev. § 545. We think this evidence should have been admitted, and that the appellant was entitled to show by the witness the facts sought to be proved as bearing upon the credit to be given his evidence, Dr. Mercer was also called as an expert by the petitioner, and was permitted, under the appellant’s objection and exception, to answer a hypothetical question, which was based partially upon facts which had been proved, partially upon as
Concurrence Opinion
concurs in the result.