|
| |
Caption: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1912 This is a reduced-resolution page image for fast online browsing.
![](https://uihistories.library.illinois.edu/REPOSITORYCACHE/91/RnJt17HLY2f3F47Tra9zF4587gm3g8WTFf03febevaiZ69Oh0311Mn32hWpT46v201yU4h0BJ2fQI9SoX4v5TFRjb4419wOIqPS1vUryVl3_15830-476.jpg)
EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:
1911] PROCEEDINGS OE THE BOARD OE TRUSTEES. 433 verdict of the jury had it been either for or against the contestant. In contested will cases arising under our statute, the verdict of the jury is to have the same force and effect as is given to a verdict in a case at law under a like state of facts and when the verdict in such case is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the court is bound by it in the same manner and to the same extent as if it were a case at law. Calvert vs. Carpenter, 96 111., 63; Moyer vs. Swygart, 125 Id., 262; Hill vs. Bahrns, 158 Id., 314; Smith vs. Henline, 174 Id., 184; Hurley vs. Caldwell, 244 Id., 448. Plaintiff in error contends that the court erred in permitting the witnesses for proponents and the witnesses for contestants, on cross-examination, to give their opinions as to Whether or not Mrs. Voodry had mind enough to know what property she had, or who her relatives were, during the time the witnesses were acquainted with her, and urges that by allowing the witnesses to so testify they were permitted to take the place of the jury and to determine the very issue which the jury were sworn to try. In this contention they rely upon the case of Baker vs. Baker, 202 111., 595. The questions here asked are not to the same effect as those to which the court sustained objections in Baker vs. Baker, supra. In that case the witnesses were asked "whether or not the tes.tator, at the time of making the alleged will, had sufficient mind and memory to understand the will in question," "whether or not he was able to carry in his mind and memory the nature and extent of his property," and "whether or not he was able to understandi n g ^ execute the will." It needs no extended discussion to point out the difference between the opinions there sought to be elicited and the opinions here secured. It is from the testimony of witnesses who knew the testatrix personally and who gave their opinion, based upon their knowledge and observations,. that the testatrix was or was not of sound mind and memory, that she was or was not insane, or that she did or did not have mind enough to comprehend the scope and extent of her property or to realize who her relatives were and the claims they had upon her bounty, that the jury are able to determine whether or not she was of sufficient mentality to execute a last will and testament and to understand the business then in hand. The evidence complained of was properly admitted. It is complained that the court erred in instructing the jury that the will provided free scholarships for the benefit of deserving young men who were unable to pay their own tuition at the University, and that the University of Illinois is not a beneficiary under the will and gets none of the property. We have discovered nothing in the record that would call for the giving of these instructions, although it is claimed they were given because of certain statements made by counsel for the plaintiff in error in his opening statement to the jury. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that no harm could have resulted from the giving of these instructions for the reason that they correctly state the provisions of the will, and the will itself was in evidence and was taken by the jury, together with the other exhibits, upon their retirement. Complaint is made of the giving of certain other instructions, but the points raised by counsel in that connection have already been discussed and it will not be necessary to notice them further. The verdict of the jury and the decree of the court being amply supported by the evidence, and there being no reversible error in the record, the decree of the circuit court is affirmed. Decree affirmed. NEW LABORATORY FEES. 3. A recommendation from the Council of Administration that laboratory fees as indicated should be charged in the following courses: Second First Semester Semester $1 00 Entomology 1 $1 00 1 50 Entomology 103 1 50 1 50 Entomology 108 r 1 50 Zoology 7 1 00 —28 TJ
| |