Bennett v. Howard
This text of 28 A. 333 (Bennett v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The record does not show that the distributee, with whom it is alleged that the appellee is intimate, has any claim as a creditor against the estate of the intestate or any interest in it other than as a distributee. This being so, no reason appears which would enable the appellee to favor her at the expense of the other distributees. As it does not appear that the rights of the appellants would be in any way prejudiced by the appointment of the appellee, we think that testimony as to the specific acts of adultery between the appellee and the distributee referred to, or of his intimacy with her, was irrelevant and that the court below did not err in excluding it.
The appellants’ petition for a new trial is denied and dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 A. 333, 18 R.I. 384, 1893 R.I. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-howard-ri-1893.