Spent Statutes

See Obsolete; Re- tled, as temporal peers are, to be tried by peal. the House of Lords. See House of Loros. conveyance of land and the disposition of property by will by Spiritualists. It is generally held that belief in Spiritualism is not necessarily such evidence of insanity as to make one incompetent to make a conveyance of real estate; Lewis v. Arbuckle, 85 la. 335, 52 N. W. 237, 1G L. It. A. 677; and in itself is not insanity; In re Spencer, 96 Cal. 448, 31 Pac. 453; Owen v. Crumbaugh, 228 111. 380, 81 N. E. 1044, 119 Am. St. Rep. 442, 10 Ann. Cas. GOG; O’Dell v. Goff, 149 Mich. 152, 112 N. W. 73G, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 989, 119 Am. St. Rep. 662; In re Keeler’s Will, 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 157; testamentary capacity is not destroyed by a mere belief in Spiritualism-; Steinkuehler v. Wempner, 169 lnd. 154, 81 N. E. 482, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 673; In re Smith’s Will, 52 Wis. 548, 8 N. W. GIG, 9 N. W. GG5, 38 Am. Rep. 75G; Otto v. Doty, 61 la. 23, 15 N. W. 578; or in witchcraft; Kelly v. Miller, 39 Miss. 19; Addington v. Wilson, 5 lnd. 137, 61 Am. Dec. 81; In re Forman’s Will, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 297; Van Guysling v. Van Kuren, 35 N. Y. 70; and belief in transmigration of human souls, strong enough to induce a bequest to a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, will not render a will invalid; Bonard’s Will, 16 Abb. Prac. (N. S. N. Y.) 128. The test seems to be whether the testator merely believed in Spiritualism and made his will accordingly, or whether he was so dominated by the will of others or by alleged statements coming from deceased persons, that the testamentary writing was in fact not his, but the will of some one else; Robinson v. Adams, 62 Me. 369, 1G Am. Rep. 473. The will may be valid although he believed in the statements of mediums; Chafin Will Case, 32 Wis. 5G0; Middleditch v. Williams, 45 N. J. Eq. 72G, 17 Atl. 82G, 4 L. R. A. 738; Brown v. Ward, 53 Md. 876, 3G Am. Rep. 422; but where the medium used his power to procure a conveyance, it was set aside; L. R.»6 Eq. 655; and so in the case of a will; Thompson v. Hawks, 14 Fed. 902; Greenwood & Smith v. Cline, 7 Or. 17; so where the testator follows blindly the supposed directions of spirits; O’Dell v. Goff, 149 Mich. 152, 112 N. W. 73G, 10 L. R. A (N. S.) 989, 119 Am. St. Rep. 6G2. It is for the jury to decide whether or not there was undue influence; Steinkuehler v. Wempner, 169 lnd. 154, 81 N. E. 482, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 673. Witnesses cannot testify that testator was a monomaniac merely because he believed in Spiritualism; O’Dell v. Goff, 149 Mich. 152, 112 N. W. 73G, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 989, 119 Am. St. Rep. 662. Proof that a defendant professed to be a medium, and charged a fee for a stance held with the assistance of others, is sufficient to convict of a conspiracy with intent to defraud; People v. Gilman, 121 Mich. 187, 80 N. W. 4, 46 L. R. A. 218, 80 Am. St. Rep. 490. 68 Conn. 428, 36 Atl. 840, 57 Am. St. Rep. 101, 37 L. R. A. 270, and notes; Will.