## Facts

- Dr. Charles D. Hews, a Chicago physician, executed a will shortly before his death.
- Hews had one child, Carrie D. Wilkinson, but the will made no bequest to her.
- The will left the bulk of Hews’ estate to his sister, Mary J. Service, the main beneficiary.
- Wilkinson contested the will on the ground that Hews was not of “sound mind and memory” when he executed it.
- At trial, the attorney who prepared the will testified about conversations he had with Hews while the will was being prepared.
- The attorney’s testimony included discussion of a letter sent to Hews by Wilkinson’s husband that directed Hews not to communicate with Wilkinson and asserted that Hews had never treated Wilkinson well.
- The attorney also recounted Hews’ statements about his relationship with Wilkinson and why he chose not to provide for her in the will.
- Other evidence showed that Hews had made earlier wills giving Wilkinson only small amounts.
- Additional proof included a declaration that Hews had given property to his former wife (Wilkinson’s mother) with the understanding that she could give it to Wilkinson.
- The jury found the will valid.
- Wilkinson appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois, arguing that the attorney’s testimony about the letter and Hews’ related statements was inadmissible hearsay and improperly influenced the verdict.

## Issues

1. In a will contest based on alleged lack of testamentary capacity, may the drafting attorney testify about the testator’s statements made during will preparation and about a third-party letter discussed with the testator, when offered to show the testator’s state of mind rather than to prove the truth of the letter’s assertions?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment sustaining the will.
- The court held that the challenged testimony was admissible to show Hews’ mental condition and state of mind at the time he made the will, including his feelings toward his daughter and his reasons for the testamentary plan.
- The court treated the letter-related evidence as relevant for its effect on Hews and as part of the circumstances considered by him, not as proof that the husband’s accusations were true.
- The court declined to overturn the jury’s verdict because the record did not show reversible error in admitting the evidence bearing on testamentary capacity.

## Legal Principles

- In a will contest where testamentary capacity is disputed, the testator’s declarations made near the time of execution may be received as evidence of mental condition, including the testator’s feelings toward natural objects of bounty and reasons for the disposition.
- Statements or communications from third parties may be described in evidence when offered to show their effect on the testator’s mind and conduct, rather than for the truth of the third party’s assertions.
- A will that omits an only child may be argued as an unusual disposition, but unusual terms alone do not establish lack of testamentary capacity; the factfinder may consider explanatory circumstances showing a coherent reason for the disposition.
- Earlier wills and related declarations that are consistent with the contested will may be considered by the factfinder in assessing whether the contested plan reflected a settled intention rather than mental impairment.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the verdict upholding Dr. Hews’ will, holding that the drafting attorney’s testimony about Hews’ discussions of a hostile letter from Wilkinson’s husband and Hews’ accompanying statements was admissible to show Hews’ state of mind and mental condition at the time of execution, and that the challenged evidentiary rulings did not warrant setting aside the jury’s finding of testamentary capacity.


Wilkinson v. Service, 94 N.E. 50 (1911)