New Trial—Order Granting—Insufficiency of Evidence.—The granting of a new trial for want of evidence to support the verdict is usually a matter almost entirely within the discretion of the trial court. Such order will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion appears.

Id.—Contest of Will—Unsoundness of Mind.—Where on a contest of the probate of a will, the jury found that the testatrix was of unsound mind at the time of its execution, and there was no substantial evidence to that effect, the trial court properly granted a new trial of that issue.

Id.—New Trial Granted as to One Issue—Denial as to Others.—It is within the power of the trial court, where there is more than one issue of fact in a case and such issues are distinct and separable in their nature, to order a new trial of one issue and refuse it as to the others.

Id.—Effect of Granting New Trial as to One Issue,—When such a new trial is granted, it opens for examination only the issue upon which it is ordered, and the determination of the other issues remain in the record and cannot be retried. The only remedy of the moving party as to those issues is to appeal from the part of the order denying the motion for a new trial as to them.

Id.—Absence of Undue Influence or Fraud—Evidence.—On a contest of a will, the verdict of the jury finding that the will was not executed as the result of undue influence or fraud is held to be sustained by a great preponderance of, the evidence.

Id.—Promise of Beneficiary to Carry Out Desires of Testatrix— Failure of Donee to Fulfill Promise—Trust for Intended Beneficiaries.—A will executed upon the faith of a promise honestly made by a beneficiary to carry out the desires of the testatrix as to certain gifts to charities and relatives cannot be said to be procured by fraud or undue influence. If, after the death of the testatrix, the donee fails or refuses to perform the promise, the will stands unaffected, but the donee and the property may be charged with a trust in favor of the intended beneficiaries.

Id.—Contest of Will—Undue Influence and Unsoundness of Mind as Grounds of Contest—Instructions.—Where a will is contested on the grounds of undue influence and unsoundness of mind of the testatrix, and the jury finds that there was no undue influence but that the testatrix was of unsound mind, an instruction, given immediately following instructions concerning unsoundness of mind, and in introducing the subject of undue influence, to the effect that such matters were distinct grounds for denying probate of a will, and that a person might be the victim of undue influence, whether at the time sound or unsound in mind, and if the jury found that the testatrix was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will, then it was entirely immaterial whether or not undue influence was exercised over her, because unsoundness of mind itself would incapacitate her to execute the will, cannot be construed as an intimation or direction to the jury that they need not consider the evidence relating to undue influence, in the event that they found unsoundness of mind was established; nor can it be presumed that such instruction prevented the jury from considering the evidence as to undue influence, where other instructions fully covered that subject, and in effect directed the jury to consider such evidence and to decide the issue accordingly.

Id.—Contest by Beneficiaries Under Prior Wills—Wills as Evidence—Instruction as to Effect of Evidence.—On such a contest, instituted by the beneficiaries under prior wills of the testatrix which were offered in evidence, it was not error to refuse an instruction to the effect that such wills were admitted for the purpose of tending to raise a probability of undue influence, and that they were limited to that purpose. Such instruction was improper, being an instruction as to the effect of evidence.

Id.—Instruction Limiting Effect of Prior Wills as Evidence.—It was proper to instruct the jury that such former wills were allowed in evidence for the purpose of showing the state of mind and feeling of the testatrix toward the beneficiaries therein named, and not, specifically, to show that she made the will in controversy while of unsound mind, or through undue influence or fraud.

Id.—Argumentative Instruction—Undue Influence^-Effect of Age and Disease.—Where the jury were properly instructed upon the subject of undue influence, and that they might, in that connection, take into consideration the age and mental, and physical condition of the testatrix, it was proper to refuse, as argumentative, a further instruction to the effect that “the amount of undue influence which will be sufficient tó invalidate a will must, of course, vary with the strength or weakness of mind and will of the testator, and the influence which would subdue or control a mind naturally weak, or which had become impaired by age, weakness, disease, or any other cause, might have no effect to overcome or mislead a mind naturally strong and unimpaired by any of the causes stated.

Id.-^Evidence—Nurse’s Ohart of Physical Condition of 'Testatrix— Loss of Chart—Instruction as to Suppression of Testimony.— A chart kept by nurses in attendance on the testatrix at the time of the execution of her will, on which was entered a memorandum of her pulse and symptoms, was not legal evidence of the facts stated therein, and the fact that it had been lost, in the absence of evidence that it was willfully destroyed or suppressed, did not furnish a basis for an instruction that evidence willfully suppressed is presumed to be adverse to the party suppressing it.