Speers v. Speers

REIF, J.,

dissenting, with whom WINCHESTER, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., join.

¶ 1 I believe the majority opinion reflects an overly strict view of the requirements for admission of a will to probate, and an unduly critical view of the evidence presented in this ease. In particular, I disagree with the majority conclusion that the absence of subscribing witness Sadie B. Walton at trial was not “satisfactorily shown.” I believe the ma*1277jority conclusion in this regard is based on an incorrect interpretation of the term “satisfactorily shown” and the out of hand rejection of hearsay evidence on this point…