Will—Revocation of Probate—Mental Incompetency—Undue Influence—Fraud—Nonsuit—Evidence.—In a proceeding to revoke the probate of a will on the grounds of undue influence and fraud, and for the alleged mental ineompeteney of the testator, in which a motion for nonsuit was granted at the close of the contestant’s case, it is held, that the evidence was insufficient to establish either of such grounds of contest, or to warrant the submission of the question to the jury.

Id.—Elements Necessary to Undue Influence.—Nothing less than pressure so acting on a testator as to destroy his free agency is sufficient to constitute undue influence.

Id.—Presumption of Undue Influence—Provision for Person Occupying Fiduciary Relation.—No presumption that a testator was unduly influenced arises from the mere fact that the will makes provision for one occupying a fiduciary relation to him. ’ There must, in addition, be at least a showing that the person so benefited had some part in the making of the will.

Id.—Hostility to Contestants—Conceding that the contestants were entitled to show that the persons charged with exercising undue influence entertained feelings of hostility toward them, such evidence could not have availed.to make a case sufficient to go to the jury in the absence of anything tending to prove that undue influence had in fact been exercised.

Id.—Mental Incompetency—Testator of Advanced Years—Failing Eyesight.—The fact that a testator was of advanced years and that his eyesight was failing, is not sufficient evidence of mental ineompeteney to justify setting aside his will.

Id.—Unnatural or Unjust Will.—A jury is not authorized to overturn a will merely because its dispositions do not conform to the jurors’ notions of justice or propriety. The will in question is held to be neither unnatural nor unjust.

Id.—Failing Memory of Testator.—Evidence that a testator’s memory was somewhat weakened, without any showing of impairment of his ability to grasp salient facts in relation to his property, its situation, and the objects of his bounty is not sufficient proof of want of testamentary capacity.

Evidence—Letters Used by Witness to Beerbsh Memory—Party Calling Witness cannot Introduce in Evidence.—Under section 2047 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party calling a witness has no right to treat as evidence, by reading, or showing, or handing to the jury, letters written by the witness, and used to refresh the witness’ recollection.

Id.—Error Cured by Subsequent Testimony.—Any error in refusing to permit a witness for the contestants to answer the question whether she had ever heard -the wife of the testator say anything to her husband about doing anything for one of the contestants, is rendered harmless, if the witness subsequently testifies that she never heard any such conversation.