In re Estate of Antoldi

“If the second date line was written by the testator, it must have been inserted after the document had been written, and after he had acquired knowledge that the first date line was defective, and would invalidate the instrument. The paper bears intrinsic evidence that the second date line was so written. It may be ascertained upon examination by any intelligent person that there are essential differences between the penmanship in that second date line and the first.”

Those are the first points made by Judge Kent, and I think it is very likely that that is the fact, that was the fact, that that second date line was not written at the time the first date line was written, and I think also that it is a good argument that a man of testator’s intelligence, or of any intelligence, would hardly be likely to have written that second date line after he had written the first, unless he had just been instructed that that was a defective date.

The supreme court, the other day, in deciding a case, said that it will not do for trial courts to decide upon conjectures; that they ought to decide according to the facts and evidence before them. What are the facts that are before us here? If the…