Will—Incompetency op Testator—Findings—Evidence.—In a contest of a will on the ground of the alleged mental ineompetency of the testator, the findings of the court to the effect that the testator was not mentally competent to make a will are held to be sustained by the evidence.

Id.—Adjudication op Incompetency in Prior Guardianship Proceedings—Evidence op Unchanged Mental Condition.—An adjudication of a testator’s ineompetency, made in a proceeding for the appointment of a guardian of his person and estate eleven days after the execution of Ms will, while not conclusive in a contest of the will, as to Ms ineompetency at the time of its execution, is proper evidence to be considered on the issue of want of testamentary capacity at the time of the adjudication, and, in connection with testimony tending to show that his mental condition had not changed during the interim, is admissible on the issue of capacity at the time the will was made.

Id.—Contest op Will—Trial on Theory That Incompetency Is in Issue—Eepusal to Allow Amended Answer to Contest.—In a contest of a will on the ground of the alleged ineompetency of the testator, the refusal of the court, after the ease had been submitted and decided, to allow the proponents to file an amended answer to the contest to cure a supposed defect in the original answer in its denials of the allegations of incapacity, is immaterial, where the case was tried on the theory that the competency of the testator was in issue, and the court found upon that question as one of fact.

Jo.—Witness Having Brief Acquaintance with Testator—Rejection of Evidence Immaterial.—In such a contest, in which the finding of the court that the testator was incompetent is sustained by the evidence, the refusal to permit a witness for the proponent, who had only known the testator for a period of ten or twelve days, to testify as an “intimate acquaintance” to her opinion regarding his mental sanity, will not justify a reversal.

Id.—Sanity at Time Prior to Period Attacked by Contestants.—In such a contest it was proper for the court to refuse to permit the proponents to establish the fact of the testator’s sanity at a date three years prior to the time when his competency was attacked by the contestants. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, his sanity during such prior period was presumed, and the proponents had the benefit of the presumption.

Id.—Testimony of Appearance as to Physical and Mental Conditions..—It was also proper to permit a witness to testify to bis observation of the testator’s “appearance” with reference to physical and mental conditions. Such testimony is not opinion evidence.