Contest of Will—Burden of Proof upon Contestant.—Upon the contest of a will, the burden is upon the contestant to prove the allegations of undue influence and unsoundness of mind.

Id.—Verdict for Contestant—Order Granting New Trial—Discretion—Appeal.—Where the evidence was conflicting^ and the judge of the trial court was satisfied that the verdict of the jury, rendered for the contestant, was contrary to the weight of the evidence, it was his duty to grant a new trial; and the motion for a new trial being addressed to his sound legal discretion, his order granting it will not be disturbed upon appeal, where no manifest abuse of discretion appears.

Id.—Execution of Will—Conflicting Evidence — Weight against Contestant.—Where one of the subscribing witnesses to a will testified that he wrote the will, and that after it was signed by the testator both the subscribing witnesses signed it as such, at his request, while 'the other subscribing witness testified for the contestant that it was not signed by the testator when he subscribed his name thereto as a witness, but the latter was contradicted by declarations made by him to the contrary, the trial court was justified in believing that the weight of the evidence of the execution of the will was against the contestant.

Id.—Scrutiny of Evidence of Subscribing Witness—Attack upon Execution.—When a witness who has solemnly subscribed his name to a will as an attesting witness, knowing tlie nature of Ms act, and that the deceased testator would rely upon Ms name as a part of the execution of the will, undertakes by Ms evidence to overthrow or cast suspicion upon it, Ms evidence should be closely serutimzed.

Id.—Specifications of Insufficiency of Evidence.—Where the specifications of insufficiency of the evidence fairly notified the opposite party of the grounds of contention of the moving party, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, and the transcript contains all of the evidence, the court ought not to refuse to consider the question of the insufficiency of the evidence upon appeal from an order granting a new trial.

Id.—Feeble Condition of Testator—Soundness of Mind.—Although the testator was feeble in health, suffering under disease, and aged and infirm, yet if he was of sufficiently sound mind to be capable of understanding the nature and situation of Ms property, and of disposing thereof intelligently, without any delusion affecting Ms action, he had sufficient capacity to make a will.

I'd.—Undue Influence—Free Agency.—The Mnd of undue influence that will destroy the instrument must be such as in effect destroyed the testator’s free agency and overpowered Ms volition at the time of the making of the will.

Id.—Quarrels with Wife Made Devisee.—A will cannot be set aside merely because of proof of quarrels between the testator and Ms wife, who was made the object of Ms bounty.