Contest of Will—Undue Influence—Withdrawal of Issue from Jury—Immaterial Irrebularity..—On a trial of a contest to the probate of a will, the action of the court in withdrawing, of its own motion, an issue of undue influence from the consideration of the jury, even if irregular, will not justify a reversal, if the evideuce on that issue was so conclusive in favor of the proponent that the court would have been compelled to set aside a verdict in favor of the contestant.

Id.—Evidence Fatally Defective—Nonsuit without Prior Motion. —Where the evidence on that issue has been fully presented, and the contestant has totally failed to make, out a ease which would support a finding in his favor, and the defect in his case is incurable, the withdrawal of the issue from the consideration of the jury, without a formal motion for nonsuit based on the insufficiency of the evidence, is without prejudice.

Id.—What Constitutes Undue Influence—Evidence.—Undue influence, however used, must, in order to avoid a will, destroy the free agency of the testator at the time, and in the very act of the making of the testament. It must bear directly upon the testamentary act. Under the evidence in this case, no such undue influence was shown.

Id.—'Attorney and Client—Privileged Communications.—An attorney, who had been requested by the proponent of the will to prepare a deed to be executed by the testator, and who, after the refusal of the testator to sign it, had a conversation with the proponent, cannot, on a contest of the will, be compelled by the contestant to state the details of such conversation.

Id.—Waiver of Privilege—Evidence of Entire Conversation—Part Given over Objection of Client.—The proponent does not waive the right to object to his attorney testifying on his redirect examination to the whole of a conversation had between them, on the ground that a part thereof had already been given in evidence, if such part had been brought out by the contestant on his direct examination over the objections of the proponent.

Id.—Statement of Testator—Disapproval of Conduct of Contestant.—The lapse of twenty-eight years between the time when the testator had expressed disapproval of the conduct of the contestant in marrying and the date of his will, affects the weight and not the admissibility of evidence of such disapproval.

Id.—Intent to Keep Property for Contestant—Exclusion of Evidence.—The rejection of evidence offered by the contestant, of a statement made by the testator several years prior to the date of his will manifesting an intent to keep certain property, afterwards conveyed to the proponent, for the benefit of the contestant, is without prejudice. Such testimony had no such direct or immediate bearing on the ultimate issues of undug influence or unsoundness of mind that its exclusion could furnish a ground for reversal.

Id.—Evidence as to Advances Made Contestant.—The refusal to permit one of the contestants, when called in rebuttal, to testify as to the amount of advances made him by the testator, is rendered immaterial, if the witness had already testified as to such advances.

Id.—Cross-Examination—Opinion as to Testator’s Sanity.—A trial court has a wide range of discretion in fixing the limits of cross-examination, and it is not an abuse of such discretion to refuse to permit a witness, who had given his opinion that the testator was of sound mind, to state whether he would have put the management of a large fund into the hands of a man in the mental and physical condition of the testator.

Id.—Expert Witness—Hypothetical Question—Assumed Facts not in Evidence.—It is not error to refuse to permit a medical expert to answer a hypothetical question asked him, when there was no evidence of facts assumed as the basis of tho question.

Id.—State of Mind of Testator—Consideration of Provisions of Will.—If there be no defect of testamentary capacity, a will is not to be upset because its provisions may seem to the court or the jury to be unreasonable, unnatural, foolish, or unjust, and an instruction to that effect is proper. Such provisions, however, may be considered in determining the state of mind of the testator.

Id.—Instructions as to Soundness of Mind.—Certain instructions given by the court on the question of' the soundness of mind of the testator reviewed, and held not to deprive the contestant of any substantial right.

Id.—Refusal to Give Requested Instruction—Bill of Exceptions— Specifications of Error.—The refusal to give an instruction claimed to have been requested by the appellant cannot be urged as error, when the hill of exceptions fails to show that any such instruction was asked. Such showing is not made, when the only reference to the instruction is in the specifications of error at the close of the bill, reciting that the court erred “in refusing to give the jury instruction Ho.-asked by the contestants, as follows: (setting forth the alleged requested instruction.)”