OCR Text |
Show THU ATWOIID rAbF, Opinion of Jale Ilartrh on Important a Point. Following ts the full text of the do clalon of Judg Jlartch lu th caw ol IJorence Alwood, a daughter of tbe tate Mlllen AUood, and bis former plunl wife, who petitioned fjr her share In his estate although uot namoJ lu his will: la tha matte of th eiUta of Mlhfn At tool, deret0j upiBionof couri TMa it a eae m which me (IxiimJ a 1 u.Ule, leaTtnc wui JitiJyadwrteHtoprtlT4oijuui dar or Jasaarr, la'l Mil aa II Atmemtam Atib.e Artttaoot e S.rmon, .a anl Uanbttr ot deeaaaed, wr named In m will a nrculor and tiaculrls. an 1 were duly apMintad bf thi ffuriaa bcH in proeesa of aliusfluiralinn I hey tiled Uieir float areo mi and I a UUon for dla tritiution , r ta eaiata twmcti i.tie waa praiaad al nlntlyolt thou nil tatta l.atitlrvd and Mrrnljr auani?) liMCnlUrsl ou lh llitt day of ebruary, lift vn lbs SOtn dar of March lr,riuroca a Alwuo-l.aniiDor.l btrtVl 1 laa, Amalia A. Suiutn, fl ed lo ihia euun iti lioo allrcioK tht aha la a duliMrand heir at law of eiiddecwawed) that ai eta nutnruvldoJ farm thalat willor aid darcaatdt Ihaiaaid Ualator otnintd Krinaho any i rorialun (or bar ibal ll does aoi appear that auui qmuvioa wi. Intentional! that au la a minor un leriha ia of elghttrn rari, etc. ant concludes with prayer "thai in u. prtH-cdlD.i bum pandioK lortinal Oiiu-niuuon ana may be pcruiititd. upou this pliili)n, to iiltmna, and that shi may l mad a arir ihorvto, aud that upon the final tlutriiauLioa ol th said cnl, thtra may M diatribatad and awarded to bar tneaaioi portloa or iha enaia of said Oeceaaed wtietlier real or erint) that she would have autrae lei "l?.1?.1! " oeeeaawl Ita1 dig 1 Inluaia a, et A I ilia beannir of una n, sul)-t l'i a format ot.j4CUoa rua-ia to the bU-mincuut. of Uailmony tliaprupottuta Id tiia C4e, admitted thai on tjiawu day of tcbruary.lsle, lilts Amelia I YountNale.ttboiaRuWjIffl Amelia A suttoo, forma andliea of tba Uormo'n ihuicii,la th dieeaaed. in the Lodowtneut House at ban I kfeet lliat aba tUervltr Ujoame wtiai la known aa plural wile, be then haTinca wilealne," 1 atnrtearlyof ih. opinion thai tbe ictktion complies wltb the lawmsurh cases and that endear ran be reeelted ihereunder. I ho olj eiioo la tbercrore oierruted. i be rrlau ol Him Amelia A. luut.ii.ia Willi Ue de cetaed barinjf Uan ad muled, audit I avmar been eiUfilahe I by unntilrallrted CfUruce issi Mas Amelia 'A. .oiiPiidata and Mrs. Amelia A tuliun, the said icuanjiaa, ara ..ne anaiheaaaieperaon.anditbatabe la theino Ibcrof rlurant-eA Atwood. tb rtitloar. It tiest Lecomca linporui-l to delerwina from ih cvtdebi.e.aaiowbalber or not aai 1 r-orebce A Atwood Is the dauKbter and belr at law of said deccatfld The tvnf of that uuforuiuate inarriftReior ibelr Jbitxiucul rohabitation a man an! wileioflfae birih of Ibe ctilld.iaid patitlnuer.or itsaraoowialKuitBi by the de ceaaed tunned ataly attr lit birth, aa bla child sortaesuii'ort whim he gate to the m ther and ehnd until dtlHruUisa bctfan to arise be iweea tbe father and mother ol the manner In rbild.etc.wat relate I la audi alraUbtlor ward way true said guardian aodinutneror Ihepeniioueriuai it oould not fall ti carry ronflcitou tothe mind ot erery dlibterrat ed terson wbo beard lbs loaUinony, tare ful vbiarratlon durlnc a aearentuir crois eiatuln4iion or ir witness by siiio cuuo sl, an I tery cl is acrutlnr of the evldeore.has utterly failvd to impeach ina witness and has made a profound Imireirlon on uy inin I that boimbeieautoraad lb witneta were i aruca to the whoa Uauiactlon, and Ihla Impreatleu waslijriio mesne weakened be the icitlmony o Ihe dialnteretied witness wbo testified in be bat of toe tcl luuer, nur waa it weaaeiied ailtr carefully woisblne; the evldAmo on tito 1 art or tbe j rot onema rrom the cinuataut ea aurroundiutt thu ese and from the facta eUb hale I by tie ei.uuce. I am coxtinced II al saiitloren eA Atwood ta the daughter and au I sir ot said le.ialor, and t au deride U'lna; acMid nadhelrol the testator, and bo bavlngou.ludto provide for tier lu b a lait will aud testament, is elieontlUe I a dlatn tultveshareof biaeiuter lo determine thia i,u4stion recount must le hat m ibe law wbicbirovernaihta cla.aol raaea In t bit Tarn lory, aa well as to tbee.ldeocelotrodutedln tbe trial of Ihcauie flection 117 U KufUlah, 1IM, ) rovldes at follows: hen any muior omlia to i rorlde la hts w ill for any of hit children, or tor tbe latueof anydoeeaed child, uu eta ttanpeara that aurh omistion waa inienllonal, aut u ohild ortfaeiasueof sura child, must bate ibe same htra In the esuie of tho letutur as it ho had died istes ate, anl sutcosdi thereto as (re idcltn the ir edintf section." Undsr this section counacl for proponents offered lo m irodure in eridem e. by prole tcatlmoay, de cfsmuns mal by tbe ducau to his life time to show that bo di t n I intend t t ronde for the petitioner in his wnl To tbu counsel for petitioner o'jJCled, out by nfrecmLt of counsel the evldruce was taken suMsit to the obJarUon, to be admitted or rsjtclt 1 or the rourl alter final arnuacat audit admUtlbiii-lymutt admUtlbiii-lymutt now bo determined lhe seitiou of our statute a'ote ijuuted Is slmust Idenucal wlthaarlionO'Jl U L tot tJUh, 11, tt fhe two fs.'liontdirtcr only m the firm el li verbs 'emu and ' pu.r " to the old Ut-Tuu the sal j verbs ere uie in the luture Umu, lu tuo new tberareu.e in the i resent lento. Ibe oil se iluu waa onstrued by the bucreoie roui-tul tbislvtriuiry in the case of Uuuiam s IJoulL til acts UrortsrrftW.ao4tb tourt there eld that ekUtmio evidet r rat ad oiiaiibleteibuw ibeuitvbUoa o( Us tisu'm topaillloprotlde for Ma ebtldren, and this wie alilrnel tr US Supreme court of the, I lUdMatee Ul) lie), wtlch court In affirtnirf aai t dtmsinn of our Territorial n reran rourl en mm en ted appruf Inelr on the feeling' eate la Maasachnaetts iWiiaon a. rllshc S Met, o), where li is held thai etldenre of tbia character it adtnmible lo eatabilah the fafl thai aurh omission nf his ehlid, y the tetutor was raused by desifB Snd not by mlttake or accident Counter for fteililonar maintain, boweref, that lhe rhaeie of tcnte above referre Hoi mitrrulaa lothe new law An eiamlnatioa by romp rlaonoflh section. In oar ptetent anlrornur tututct, preredlns anl succeed ox lhe section ondgr eunai iteration, tevatis the same chanire In tense, and I am of the opinion. Hut lie Ifxislature Intended no ehaoxe In the law la this particular, and that the aaiiie romt ruction ihould follow aa In Cuularfitl Ihiml, aatitrej. Ctuntel for petitioner further argue that section vh o I-or llnh, ISM, has been en. io1-.'D(thederuion in tJouUm ts l-oull. anu aj puea to this rate The section rctarred to re.a. at follow In tat of uncertainty aiUiftjc upon the race ol a will, as to ihest pit rtlinnoleny of it 1 rovi-lons, Hit teUlii Intention I to be at re ruined from the words ot uuder which it waa made, eacmtne of bla oral I hie section refers lo a rate where "upon II face of a wi I in uncertainty antes aatolbe application of any ?r its protiaioea,' but refer enc to the will nnder con titration tetsils tin uchuuremintyontta race, in fad Joat the oppotiie ai peart. Ha prcvisiona are plain and aimpl , ftbdcocllb a) plmd without dllUculty were ll aoi for the un ertalaty which arote lot mediately up) ihe dlint; m thlt rourl of the vemi bcra ttition claliulna: to be a rhildof the teautor, tiiiprotldee for in the will and ibereforeeiilUle1lodilintiTe ahare of his upon tbe fare of th will, but deoara tbe will, aadia.uch Mcataittelnientinnorth irlator cantu't tr atcrrtalnad merely from the lac e-Hereof thewill.whtct, is entirely silent aa to the petitioner, and clreumtUncea un ler which il waa made, but from e ideere iarfe as welL I do not thick aaid aertton JVM applies lo tbe caae al bar, boi do 1 tbiiik th.re la any mater lalchture in the law as UI I down In Coolant .nouit, ftiprtt, Tb sail tot inn la simply declaratory ui the familiar rule that cridtw a tf oral deciaratious cannot If gtrea to otr-Ihrow otr-Ihrow or rontrol the word of written Inttru menu Attain, the partr iffcriac eYtrtoaiceil oence inncaae lis tbia docs not oiler H lo ehanxe the lanxnaie of th will nor lo control a written le-trameai. Tbe tetitioner does not claim undtr tbe will but Under our statute, the will itaelf I sted tor to other pun ote than to show tl contains no pro viaiou lor her, and ibe inquiry a in wbetiiajr or not tie testator omitted u iruttdefor ber by dealeft la a d SUnrt lue, the cetalil lab went of tthchdkfeabolneccitariyalfect tb Unor of thelnttmnien. When aurh tettlmony, a lo Ibetlcciaratiuns of lb icauter, laoRered.aa lo Una ra, li sutlaiu the oaillon that the petitioner waa lot sot tonally omitted by the le.taior and for that reatvin canuot claim aa heir at law, an j thereby change tbe i roTltioot or bis will, the ertdem e conurma the w ill, end hence u not In Tiolatlintf lh general rule ti at lb Intent of theletutor inutt be founJ on lhe lac of tb will The said petition ratted a talent ambiguity lu the will, which ts uoauLiguona on lit face, and lo remove thlt, larolt-erldenfi aa to lb fact aud rircum tUuoea, lacJuling the declaration of tbe lea ut ir, trad og up to and at and alter the tint of thi u.kiii(af the will it admit tittle. Liloaler a t ll a, am Set, toulam Ta. iMull, lu V l SIS. Hileont l-.iti,aMuloo II venees an ben uurgb, 1 DenloW ConTrrtets Waits l.ieutll l buidaimllar vitwemrer rd lo section lo (J Uot Liau,lM to which counsel baa called lion as to w hi ther or not Hoi c me A Atwood i entitled ta ,imb ttlr ehare oi the tealaur a itate, J hav siea illy ki l tn slew the cncuin-ataucrawith cncuin-ataucrawith which he was aurmunded from ihe limed that unfortunate ufatriage, as ap pears by lb etldence, and bat nou rd bww iho defendant bat etiowa tbe aveisiontlie tMtator ba l for ihe eutionsr, how ha rafted li provide lor ber a,ud ber mother, or lo owt ber at his child m hi lirettnic, anj have alto mticed thaiinthepreu.eC tbe wneettet lor lheieujut.fr be exbibited noaochavcr sion, but eiautiy tbe oj pitsile, al Icaat lor autne lime alter tb birth ot th ehilJ ttnythts (.nancnof ditjAtitioar Was il bectutenf the uatncndly litlinic bslwcen Ibo fauuilcsF 1 would b inclined to rriueit aevertly aowe ol the teatimony of ibe loponenta wtre it not tor tbe tact that the evidvoco ct ihe 1 etniuner tdeo point to lue dirttcudie which existed between Ue mother and the tratator from th time her child was eighteen uonina old, and titer ahe retoted t return to him unlet he would givbr home that she Mtfbt call ber own. Ibeaeeforward the breach aeemed to wlfen, tne mother fwrba le ler child I speak to lhe father and th families falttd to rccog n so each other 1 am not con t meed tLat tb another ot Ibe petitioner ba I no good reason for leaving lb Utlalor, e.pe. tally arurcuu J i in j, in the lignt of th vircum ai.nec nrJuna fer.the testimony in relation I I pro) ei eondue.1 and auilaty for ih wcl'aie otharrbild cisenbv ber old mtther and lira. .oui Madten, who themtahe ar on tbe ahtdy aid tr litn-member or ihe aame nut-iie a lhe Utlalor, iwlievtng In the tautc faith whsc&enltcd in the bwndjoi ii.inmony an old iiianlahiaduta with lie bloomiug, in noceni young sweoe gin, tbe rcea t of whirli union Ibe inaocent chl u at Ihe bar of thi court, refuting to beliet that ber latiter IntcnUouail withheld Iroin htr what JnttRe won! I tutu it her, or that bo doted lus eves in death loiantiAi Lreaatng th aulcmn irumiae made to ler mother, lhat be would l rOVldo for his chll I Alwaya detiroue t help the weak and innocent 1 bate en laavored i4etauilBelblcaw..b gieal tare, but tb eonciutinlalrreautib tUai tbeleatator in leutionally omitted to I rovid lor his child, anlnouLleeluwua4tiibia may be.ileweu ironi ipe aideol Ihecbild, lue Court 1 bound The learned counsel for petitioner ha ug gtated the theory tbat Uie tvatator who, Iiaviug oven shown by ibeefileiueot the iropenenu to hav lean an honoraul and U ngbt man, baling been aw am of lhe unfriend y feeling that existed in lila family toward lb pe nuonar aoJ ber mot Ler, la the tnterettn ol li t anl barim.br, or, po.tibly, unJir a initiate of fart at to the la iviuily urthecbld.oonciulelto omit the te-til te-til our irora bis wiil,thinkloc that I fie eiut f I t(auliing lhat she was hu child sue would (tka a uiatriuuUve share of bis emm uudti ibeeutut herelobeiorw contlderel. 1 tuu.t admit ibttiaotl of the wlmetace in l ha mtl ef thlt raue gat aoroe color lo tbia lhjry Jus ccruUiy n charitable view anu one whim will ltd. do violence to lit fair name aa an honorable man t but doea it help the catu ut tbe peuiiMuarf iao a court inquire into the luuuvca which impel lc,tor lo omit ia iro-vide iro-vide for hi chili in ihe disposition ot hie properly by will? I think not. Under our l every peraon over lh ate of l. of f und mind, may by litt will Otiose of all his etute, real and peraonal (( I. of Utah. isvm, aectinn 311) lbero It uo limitation rre .Sow per uo I nod aulhurily for a eiurt telmiulfeinli the mom a of a tratator m vmlungioproviieior his child when it is ctearthai ha intended to d so- o matter howuijmtor unruatonalitn th Olspoatuon,it the statute has been compile 1 wuh alt the world is bound by bla will, Th lipa of tbe lettit r ar aeatcxl lu death, 'he court is aske 1 tveulve tbe rayttery, anl under ibe weight of authority and the erllsi.de 1 leal uturd to dec Ida ;tbli case in Isvor ot th irtnonenU Ahould jnatico thereby bo datlroned, I ran but prat the bupo that tbo deviaaet under tbe ynii il.yukesurh a courts, now tliatlh ta leruitycf tberhlidiaeaiabliihad.aa wilt catt no cloud Upon the fair name ot th dead. Thepetiigoofvlalnlin ror Intervention la dltmiated. il W, lUoxil, Judge. |