LIPPHARD ?. HUMPHREY. ?09 U.S. Opin/on of the C?ourt. t2mt such error existed in the exclusion of evidence of declara- tions �lieged to have been made by the test?trix prior ?nd subsequent to the date of her will as to how she intended to dispose, or ? disposed, of her property. Decedent's husband testified that his wife t?lked to him often, prior.to the date of the will, as to what she intended to do with her property after her death, and that they t?lked the matter over after the date of the will. He was asked what she said, but objection to the question was sustained. Appel- lants did not state what they expected to prove by the hus- band. Albert R. Humphrey, another witness, testified that he Had a conversation with Mrs. Lipphard about two years before she died. He was asked the following questions: "Did she tell you how she had left her property, or how she was going to leave it? A. Yes, sir. "What did'she say to you in rcfcrence to that matter?" To which cavcatees objected, and the court sustained the objection. Counsel for appellants stated that he desired to show by this witness that testatrix denied leaving the prop- erty as mentioned in the will, this being more than three years after the will was executed. William A. L;pphard, one of the caveatees, was asked a similar question, and, upon objection, the court made a like ruling, excluding the evidence. He said that he had a ?on- versation with her in reference to her will just before her death; that she told him how she had left her property. Mrs. Sarah Lipphard, the wife of one of the cavcatecs, testi- fied that eight or ten weeks before dccedent died she asked her if she had made a will, and then she was asked the following question: "What did she say in reference to what was in her will and what she had done with her property, if anything?" On objection by the caveatecs the evidence was ?cxcluded. Counsel for caveators stated to the court that he desired to show by thi-? witne.?s that testatrix had denied to tile witnc?
�
