Estates of Deceased Persons—Contest of Will—Right of Heir-Beneficial Interest.—An heir at law of a deceased person may contest a will offered for probate without any other showing of beneficial interest than such heirship, although the will may provide for the contestant a larger share of the estate than would be received as ah heir at law.

Id.—Trial of Contest—Submission of Issues—Questions for Jury— Ultimate Facts.—Upon the trial by jury of a contest of the probate of a will, the proper procedure and the best practice in submitting the issues to the jury is to submit with proper instructions questions as to the ultimate facts involved in the issues, such as whether the deceased was competent to make a will and whether at the time of its execution he was free from fraud practiced upon him by the person charged therewith.

Id.—Effect of Verdict—Probate of Will.—If the verdict of the jury condemns the will upon either of the ultimate facts charged as grounds of contest, its probate must be rejected. If it supports the will, the court should take evidence upon matters not involved in the contest, and upon the joint findings of the jury and of the court in favor of the will, it must be admitted to probate.

Id.—Submission of Questions as to Probative Facts. — The submis-' sion of questions to the jury as to probative facts, in addition to the ultimate facts, is allowable, but is not necessary.

Id.—Findings Upon Probative Facts Only—Legal Conclusion as to Ultimate Fact.—Where the ultimate fact upon any issue involved in the contest is not submitted to the jury, and only probative facts are submitted and found, the ultimate fact cannot be considered as established, unless it necessarily results as a legal conclusion from the probative facts found.

Id.—Inference of Fact not Permissible—Rejection of Probate.— The court must not make any inference of fact from the probative facts found by the jury, in order to support the judgment which it renders; and in order to justify the rejection of the probate of the will upon probative facts found, it must be " able to declare as matter of law from those facts that the judgment must be one rejecting the probate.

Id.—Insufficient Findings as to Fraud — Fraudulent Intent not Shown.—Findings merely of probative facts bearing upon the ques. ti on of actual fraud, charged upon a proponent of the will, .do not legally show a case of actual fraud as defined by section 1527 of the Civil Code, where there is no finding that there was any intent of the proponent to deceive the testator, or to induce him to make the will, or that false representations made by him which controlled the action of the testator were known by him to be false, or were not believed by him to be true. Such findings cannot justify a denial of the probate of the will on the ground of fraud.

Id.—Control of Testator—False Representations Honestly Made.— It is not fraudulent to seek to control a testator in making a will, with proper purpose and effect; and if false representations are honestly made, with a belief that they are true, and with good motives, they are not fraudulent, nor would the will in this respect be executed by reason of any fraudulent representation.

Id.—Alternative Finding.—A finding that representations were false or fraudulent is not a finding of fact upon either alternative, and amounts to nothing.

Id.—Representations'.not Shown to”’be Effective.—Findings as to representations not shown to have been made prior to the execution of the will, or as to representations which could have had no effect upon the mind of the testator, or which are not shown to have been believed or acted upon by him, are not indicative of fraud.

Id.—Fraud in Execution of Will—Immaterial Finding—Material Omission to Find.—A finding that no fraud or misrepresentation was practiced by any person at the very time the testator signed the will and codicil is immaterial on the issue of fraud, and is not equivalent to a declaration that the proponent was not guilty of fraud practiced upon the testator in the execution of the will; and where there is no direct finding upon that subject matter, the omission is material, and a judgment rejecting the probate of the will must be reversed.

Id.—Evidence—Divorce Suit—Testimony of Testator—Reporter’s Copy.—A reporter’s copy of the testimony given by the testator in an action for divorce is not admissible upon the contest of the probate of his will. Its admissibility is not justified by section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Id.—Declarations of Testator—Testimony of Reporter—Refreshment of Memory.—If the declarations of the testator made in the divorce suit were for any reason competent and admissible, they must be proved as declarations, by oral testimony of the reporter who heard them, who could refresh his memory from his notes taken at the time.

Id.—Kindness of Contestant to Proponent’s Family.—Evidence as to the kindness of the contestant shown to the family of the proponent is irrelevant and inadmissible.

Id.—Immaterial Documentary Evidence.—A [deed of trust executed by the testator, and a lease made by him to the proponent are immaterial, and not admissible evidence for the contestant.