cuted her will, was laboring under various insane delusions, which were the sole or controlling cause that induced her action. One of these delusions is said to have been her belief that she was being persecuted by her sisters Mrs. Findlay and Miss Brush, and another that she believed that certain marvelous things-such as the ability of a person to live after extracting all of his blood from his bodycould be accomplished through the powers of the religion which she professed. Several experts were called, who testified that, in their opinion, these beliefs were insane delusions, and demonstrated a lack of testamentary capacity, and one of them went so far as to hold that the belief in Christian Science itself was an insane delusion. The record is replete with testimony upon this subject, and the workings and teachings of this religious belief have been gone into most minutely and elaborately. Its adherents believe that matter has no existence except as a manifestation of mind; that the divine mind is all-controlling; that the human mind, by becoming clean and purified, can, to a degree, realize and employ the powers of the divine mind; that all sickness and bodily ills are merely a species of sin, error, or evil, and exist only in the apprehension of the human mind, and are in nowise phenomena of matter; that the divine mind has the same power to relieve one of such sin or error, manifested in the form of disease, as it has to expel any other unclean or evil thought; and that the human mind, if it can only so perfect itself as to partake in sufficient degree of the omnipotence of the divine mind, also will be able to throw off and rid itself of disease. These beliefs are embodied in a book called "Science and Health," which purports to derive them from the teachings of the Bible. Demonstrations of these teachings are attempted by Christian Scientists, who are known as "healers," and who treat disease without the use of any material means whatever; the treatment, as one of them testified, being "always a prayer.” They do not claim to cure all bodily ills, but they attribute their failures, not to the nature of the illness, but to the imperfect realization by the healer of the divine mind, since to them the possibilities of Christian Science are infinite. It is their belief, on the other hand, that, when a patient does recover, the healer has realized sufficiently the truths as taught by "Science and Health" and the Bible, and has, by his understanding of the power of God, as thus demonstrated by Christian Science, been able to remove the imperfections of which the disease was the result. It is therefore evident that, however opposed these teachings may be to the beliefs or notions of others, they are founded on the religious convictions of those professing them. This being so, the court cannot say that those persons are mentally unsound. The truth or falsity of a religious belief is beyond the scope of a judicial inquiry. In re Keeler's Will (Sup.) 3 N. Y. Supp. 629. Thus, the court has often been asked to pass upon the falsity of Spiritualism, and to hold that a follower of this faith, which, like Christian Science, is contrary to the convictions of most men, was of necessity laboring under an insane delusion; but it has uniformly refused so to declare or hold. In re Halbert's Will, 15 Misc. Rep. 308, 37 N. Y. Supp. 757; Robinson v. Adams, 62 Me. 369, 404. There can be

and 106 New York State Reporter

no doubt that the decedent's belief in the religion which she had adopted, and her strong adherence to the church wherein she worshipped, were the cause of the making of her will. Consequently the only question which concerns us is as to the effect of this belief on her mind, the belief itself not being any evidence of insanity. Did it unseat her judgment, dethrone her reason, and thus deprive her of capacity to make a will? If it did; if, by reason of the effect of this belief on her mind, she became the victim of insane delusions, from which her will resulted, then it follows that the contestants must prevail. Taylor v. Trich, 165 Pa. 586, 608, 30 Atl. 1053, 44 Am. St. Rep. 679; Orchardson v. Cofield, 171 Ill. 14, 30, 49 N. E. 197, 40 L. R. A. 256, 63 Am. St. Rep. 211; In re Beach, 23 App. Div. 411, 419, 48 N. Y. Supp. 437. In this connection, it should be borne in mind that while, generally speaking, an insane delusion is a demonstrably false belief, founded on supposed facts which really have no existence, but as to the falsity of which the person laboring under the belief as claimed cannot be convinced, yet, as the court of appeals has said, "if there are facts, however insufficient they may in fact be, from which a prejudiced, or a narrow or a bigoted, person might derive a particular idea or belief, it cannot be said that the mind is diseased in that respect." And it matters not whether such idea or belief be utterly ridiculous or illogical; it is still not evidence of insanity. In re White, 121 N. Y. 406, 24 N. E. 935. There can be no doubt that the decedent used the word "persecution" in describing the conduct of her sisters towards her. Indeed, she told Mrs. Holden that it was because of the persecution of her sisters that she desired to change her former will. As has been shown, the testatrix became fervently devoted to Christian Science after her recovery from pneumonia. she did not, by any means, give up her interest in current topics, in literature and in art, and while she retained her great liking for music, yet she devoted far less time to these matters than formerly; her chief interest in life now being to study the religion which she had embraced, and to associate with its followers. Mrs. Findlay testified that she found no fault with her sister because of this change; still it must be inferred from the entire case that the decedent's sisters were greatly dissatisfied with her course. One of them had gone to the Christian Science Church for "amusement and entertainment." They both believed that the claims made by this belief were preposterous, and there can be no doubt that they often spoke in terms of ridicule of the decedent's faith, both to her and to her friends. The testatrix was a keenly sensitive woman, and her religious convictions were exceedingly strong and fervent. Such a person naturally would be wounded by unfriendly criticism. of the mildest character directed against her. The decedent complained to several of her coreligionists because of the lack of sympathy that was shown by her family with regard to her religious belief. She seems to have been very much attached to her sisters, but she evidently felt that, by reason of the conflicting views which she and they entertained respecting the religion which she professed, she could not be happy or contented in their society or live in the same household with them. It has been pointed out that in Janu

While

ary, 1899, the decedent finally wrote a lettter to her sisters in which she went over this trouble, and said that she would not return to them. Mrs. Findlay's reply to this letter is significant. She writes the decedent that the step thus taken by her is unloving and her criticism is unchristian; that there is no need of words or eloquence when the daily life shows coldness and lack of sympathy and interest; and that the past has shown how unwilling the decedent has been to look at these things fairly. The separation which ensued was by no means a severance of the other ties which existed between the testatrix and her sisters. They corresponded with each other in the most affectionate terms and sent one another gifts. Indeed, a genuine and deep-seated affection existed between them, the only cloud that darkened their lives being this difference as to religion. While, probably, the decedent entertained exaggerated notions as to the treatment accorded to her on this subject, yet, in the face of all of the facts disclosed, I fail to see how the conclusions she arrived at can in any sense be called an insane delusion or the result of one. There was certainly some continued opposition to her views, and, under the rule above enunciated, her belief that the conduct of her sisters amounted to persecution, while perhaps not justified, cannot be termed an evidence of insanity.

With regard to the other delusions which, it is claimed, affected the mind of the testatrix, it appears that on one occasion, in the winter of 1898, Dr. Ball, who had been her physician, requested her to answer certain hypothetical questions which he desired to ask her in connection with Christian Science, telling her at the same time that he did not care to discuss the subject with her. He then asked her several questions, as, for example, what she would do if a foreign body were imbedded in her eyeball, and she replied that she would go to a Christian Scientist who would remove the pain, so that it would make no difference whether the foreign body were in her eye or not. He also asked her what she would do if she were bleeding to death by having her leg cut off, or what effect it would have if the blood were extracted from her body, and she said that she would not die if her mind were in harmony with the divine mind. The next day Dr. Ball received a letter from the decedent which he destroyed, and wherein, it seems, she explained at length her views upon Christian Science, but, unfortunately, he could not remember its contents. It will be at once observed that the decedent was merely expressing her beliefs as to certain supposititious cases, and that no argument was used to show to her that she was in error. She was held down to almost categorical answers, and, although she afterwards gave her interrogator an explanation of her views, that explanation has been lost. It is fair to infer from what has been testified to as to the teachings of Christian Science that the decedent meant that, since everything was possible in her faith, life could be preserved even in the miraculous manner supposed, providing that in any given case the healer could adequately realize the powers of, and place himself in sufficient harmony with, the divine mind. There is nothing to show that the views involved in her answers to the doctor were acted on, and, if the belief in Christian Science itself is not

and 106 New York State Reporter

an insane delusion, I fail to see how mere convictions of the efficiency of its powers in supposed cases can be termed evidences of insanity. Nor will the decedent's repeated declarations that she had been healed of disease by Christian Science be termed an insane delusion. It is urged that she added to these declarations that physicians had abandoned her case, but the evidence is not at all convincing that she made such statements. Even if she had, it can well be explained by ascribing them to a proneness not unusual with people of magnifying events and occurrences with which they have been associated, especially if there have been present some elements of novelty or of strangeness or of personal peril or danger. So far as concerns this belief in her cure, she certainly had been ill, she appealed to Christian Science, and she believed she had recovered her health.

Upon a careful consideration of the voluminous testimony taken on this trial, I am of the opinion that the burden of proof on the issue of testamentary capacity, which is on the proponent, has been fully sustained, and that at the time of the execution of her will the decedent was of sound mind.

The contestants further insist that this will should not be probated for the reason that it was the result of undue influence exerted upon the testatrix by Mrs. Stetson and other Christian Science healers. In aid of this contention the rule is invoked that where a testator ignores the natural objects of his bounty, and gives to strangers, the proponent should come into court prepared to show that the will represents the unconstrained wishes of the decedent, and should furnish some proof besides the factum of the will, particularly if a former will, made while the testator was in good health, has been supplanted. In re Carland's Will (Sur.) 37 N. Y. Supp. 924; In re Way, 6 Misc. Rep. 484, 27 N. Y. Supp. 235; Tyler v. Gardiner, 35 N. Y. 559. The rule is also invoked that, where the beneficiary under such a will occupies a position. of confidential relationship to the testator, a presumption of fraud arises. Marx v. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357, 371. Even if it be granted that this presumption exists in the present case, it is one of fact only, subject to being overcome by the evidence. In a case of the length of this one, involving the examination of nearly 40 witnesses, circumstances are very apt to crop out here and there which, when deftly welded together, appear to spell out a suspicion. of fraud, yet which, when regarded in the light of all of the facts, become of little or no moment. I have given careful consideration to the argument of contestants' counsel, and have thoroughly examined the testimony upon which he relies, but I fail to find any substantial evidence tending to show undue influence. On the contrary, when all of the facts present are considered, the conclusion seems inevitable that no restraint whatever interfered with the expression of the decedent's testamentary intentions. So far as concerns Mrs. Stetson, it was shown that, excepting as the decedent met her in church as other members did, she saw very little of the testatrix socially during that time that she knew her, and, despite the earnest contentions of the contestants, I am convinced that she was entirely innocent of the fraud that has been

sought to be fastened upon her. If undue influence existed, it must have been wrought through the medium of a conspiracy, in which various healers who attended the decedent, and particularly her friend, Miss Duncan, took part. The testimony of these witnesses absolutely negatives the existence of any such conspiracy. I was impressed with the truthfulness of their statements, and nothing that these women said or did in any wise indicates that any plan was formed or existed to coerce the volition of the decedent and to procure her to make a will.

The circumstances present in this case clearly show how it came about that the will in contest was made. The sisters and brother of the decedent were not dependent upon her bounty. Their property was equal to that inherited by the testatrix, and, so far as appears, they were as independently situated as she was. During the last four years of her life the church which she made her residuary legatee became deeply rooted in her affections. She felt that she owed to it a debt of gratitude, for she believed that it had given her new health and strength and happiness, and, feeling in this wise, she doubtless thought that she could best aid it in the promulgation of its teachings by giving to it the bulk of her estate. She was, in my opinion, thoroughly aware of what she was about when she made this disposition, and she clearly knew the contents of her will, which was in absolute accord with her free and unconstrained intentions and wishes. Whether her determination not to give her fortune to her family was unwise, whether the residuary legatee herein has deserved the affection and gratitude. which the testatrix has so bountifully given evidence of, are not questions for this court to consider in arriving at its decision. The decedent, being of sound mind and free from restraint, had the right to do with her own as she pleased, and her will must, therefore, be admitted to probate.

The contestants raise the question that the bequest to the First Church of Christ, Scientist, is void because made within two months of her death, contrary to the provisions of section 6 of chapter 319 of the Laws of 1848. It seems that the certificate of incorporation of this church recites that the incorporators are desirous. of organizing a religious society pursuant to the provisions of “an act of the New York legislature passed April 5, 1813, entitled 'An act for the incorporation of religious societies' (Laws 1813, p. 212), and to the several acts of said legislature amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto." The contention is made that the act of 1848 is supplemental to that of 1813, and hence that the residuary legatee is subject to the restrictions contained in the former. Section 6, referred to, has been held to apply only to corporations organized under the law of which it forms a part, unless where, by express statutory enactment, it has been extended to others. In re Fitzsimmons' Estate, 29 Misc. Rep. 731, 62 N. Y. Supp. 1009; Hollis v. Seminary, 95 N. Y. 166. It has also been decided that certain of the corporations to which section 6 pertains are religious corporations, although not so described in terms in the statute, and that an act subjecting a corporation to the provisions of law relating to devises and bequests to religious societies makes ap