OCR Text |
Show FAMOUS BIRDSELL CASE REVERSED BY SUPREME COURT; CHURCH LOSES disobeyed the command of her spiritual spirit-ual advisers and for this had been dis-fellowshiped. dis-fellowshiped. The evidence shows that she had no part in fixing the consideration, considera-tion, either financial or otherwise, forming form-ing the basis of the transaction. The day following the signing she asked about the paper she had signed and evinced a desire to see it. Upon getting get-ting it into her hands she declared she would never sign it, irrespective of the fact that she had already done so. In conclusion, the opinion savs that settlements of existing difficulties outside out-side of the legal courts are encouraged by tho courts, but that the law courts are just as willing to interfere, on behalf be-half or against anything approaching coercion on the part of church courts or church officials as against any other class of persons or officials. The opinion was written by Justice Frick. Chief Justice Mct'arty "and Justice Jus-tice Straup concur. In an opinion handed down by the Supreme court yesterday afternoon the Lower court is reversed on the petition of Isaac Elrdsell, guardian of Cora Birdsell, an Insane person. The action grew out of the transfer of some property prop-erty by Cora Birdsell to James and Hulda J. Leavett in Sevier county some time ago. ' The case was first handled by a church court through the bishop of the ward in which the parties lived. The church court decided against Miss Birdsell and held that the transfer of the property was legal. The case was then taken into the District court which sustained the ruling of the church court. This judgment is now reversed re-versed and the lower court is ordered to enter a decree declaring the deed whereby the land was transferred void, and to reinstate the plaintiff in all her rights to tho property, she to recover re-cover all costs of the action. According to the opinion of the Supreme Su-preme court with regard to the ruling of the lower court, insanity and undue influence and the allegation that the defendant de-fendant paid $100 and other valuable considerations for the title constituted about the entire case. The defense was practically a denial of these allegations. allega-tions. History of Case. June 11. 1904, Cora Birsell trans- i ferred a piece of property to James E. Leavitt by warranty deed; August 3, 1905, she was adjudged insane and committed com-mitted to the State Mental hospital at Provo. In the evidence at tho trial that followed was the testimony of a physician physi-cian to the effect that Miss Birdsell was mentally incompetent. Her relatives rela-tives testified to practically the same effect. The witnesses for the defense, testified that she did not make the deed of her own free will. The case had gone through all of the so-called church courts before the signing of the document docu-ment and the decision in every instance was against her. The record shows that she was excommunicated ex-communicated when she declined to comply with the ruling of the church authorities, and that she signed the deed eventually as a means of regaining regain-ing her standing in the church. To bring this about, bishops and elders were called in to minister to her. The testimony of Simon Christensen, a witness, wit-ness, is quoted in effect as follows: "I was there when the deed was signed. When we got there she seemed troubled and distrssed and expressed herself about like this: ' 'Why was I so foolish as to refuse to comply with that decision t' We told her that if she wished to comply with that decision now she had the privilege and could regain her fellowship in the church. Some one said, 'If you think more of that land than you do of your fellowship in the church, that will make a difference.' To which she replied emphatically, em-phatically, 'I care nothing for the land so that I may get to feel as I did before.'" be-fore.'" Character of Evidence. The record teems with this character of evidence from the defendant's witnesses. wit-nesses. Her friends, relatives and spiritual spirit-ual advisers without exception solicited, advised and some even importuned her to sign the deed. The Supreme court holds that this was far from that free and voluntary act the law requires in the execution of instruments. Her condition con-dition is held to have been such that she neither saw. nor comprehended matters mat-ters in their true light, and attributed her suffering to the fact that she, had |