Simmons, C. J.
1. Upon the trial of an issue of devisewit vel non, evidence that the propounder had been appointed guardian of a grandson of the alleged testatrix was irrelevant, but its admission was harmless error, the evidence being immaterial to the case.
2. Records from the ordinary’s office showing that the alleged will had been admitted to probate in common form, that the propounder had been appointed administrator with the will annexed, and had qualified as such, contained matter relevant to the issue, and there was no error in admitting these records over an objection that they were “not competent evidence.” It does not, as to the particular records just mentioned, appear that the question was raised that certified copies should have ¡been offered instead of the original records, and therefore this question is not now presented for adjudication.
3. Although the paper propounded as a will recited that previous advances to a considerable amount had been made to the caveator, a son of the testatrix, there was no error in rejecting a ground 'of caveat alleging that she was laboring under the mistaken idea that the caveator had received advances from her when he had not done so, it appearing from other statements contained in 'the caveat that the advances referred to were the rents of certain land, as to the ownership of which there had been a dispute between the testatrix and the caveator, and that he had finally yielded to her claim of title. The fact that the caveator received the rents was not brought in question by the caveat, and it merely showed there had been a difference [171] of opinion between .him and the testatrix upon a question of title relatively to the land which produced these rents.
June 12, 1896. By two Justices. Argued at the last term.
Appeal. Before Judge Pish. Macon superior court. May term, 1895.
Lofley offered for probate in solemn form tbe will of Mrs. Margaret Meeks, alleging that A. H. Greer, tbe executor nominated in tbe will,having died before Mrs.Meeks, petitioner was appointed administrator with tbe will annexed. By tbe will testatrix left all her estate to her bus-band Allen Meeks during bis life. She gave to her son James P. Meeks $5, stating that previous advances bad been made to him of considerable amounts.' Sbe gave to her two daughters Margaret and Mary Cromer tbe whole of her estate in remainder after the death of Allen Meeks, except a small legacy to her son, and in tbe event of tbe death of either of the daughters before becoming possessed of tbe legacy, she provided, that then the child or children, if any be living, of such deceased legatee, should be entitled to such legacy, and tbe same rule to apply in case they should both die. Caveat was interposed by James P. Meeks. There was a verdict for tbe propounder; a motion for a new trial made by tbe caveator was overruled and be excepted. The motion assigned error:
In admitting in evidence, over objection, tbe original order of tbe ordinary, appointing S. T. Lofley as guardian of John Cromer, for tbe purpose of showing tbe appointment of Lofley as guardian of John Cromer, minor son of Margaret Cromer, said order being identified only by tbe testimony of the clerk of the court of ordinary, showing that said order was a genuine original record from tbe ordinary’s office. The objection was that it was not competent .evidence, a certified copy being the proper .and best evidence.
[171]*1714. There was sufficient .evidence to show the due execution of the will, and also to warrant the jury in finding that the testatrix, though illiterate, had knowledge of its contents when she signed it. Judgment affirmed.
In admitting, over objection, the original record book purporting to be from the court of ordinary, containing the record of letters of .administration with, the will annexed, granted to S. T. Lofiey, and Lofley’s bond as administrator, for the purpose of showing the interest of Lofley as a pro,pounder of the will; said record book being identified only by the testimony of the clerk of the court of ordinary, showing that it was the genuine original record from the ordinary’s office. Caveator’s objection was that it was not competent evidence. When the record and papers from the ordinary’s office were offered, Mr. Perry testified that he was the clerk of the court of ordinary .and knew the records and papers to be the genuine and original records and papers from the ordinary’s court; that he brought them from the ordinary’s office; but he was not the clerk of the court of ordinary at the time said records were made.
In striking caveator’s amended caveat, on the ground that it was too vague, uncertain and indefinite and not sufficient in law. (All the grounds of the original caveat had previously been withdrawn.) The grounds of amended caveat were: (1) The will should not be established, because at the time of making it Margaret Meeks was laboring under, the mistaken idea that this defendant had received previous advances by and from her, “when in fact said advances were the rents from this caveator’s own land that this caveator afterwards unwillingly abandoned to testatrix, and which forms a part of the estate bequeathed. Gave the same to said testatrix by abandoning the same to her.” (2) “Then caveator left the State of Georgia on or about the-■ day of-, 1859, and returned in 1880 to see his said parents and collect rents due him from testatrix and her husband. At the time of his said return a difficulty arose, under a misapprehension of the caveator’s real rights as to said land, between caveator and said testatrix, and lie immediately returned to Texas, his.former home, and said testatrix immediately made her will, while still mad with this defendant, and while she was unduly prejudiced against him by reason of said difficulty aforesaid.” Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI