Will execution and attestation proved where direct evidence outweighed inconclusive handwriting opinion and no suspicious circumstances remained.

A propounder of a will must prove due execution and attestation and, where suspicious circumstances are raised, satisfactorily remove them. The Supreme Court applied that rule and accepted that the holograph will was in the testator's handwriting, that the testator had full testamentary capacity, and that no real suspicious circumstances existed. It also relied on the document's intrinsic features to support the stated execution date and accepted the attesting witnesses' testimony. The handwriting expert's opinion was found inconclusive and insufficient to outweigh direct evidence. The will was therefore held duly executed and attested, and probate was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the will was duly executed and attested so as to entitle the propounders to probate.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that a propounder must prove due execution and attestation of a will and, where suspicious circumstances exist, must remove them to the satisfaction of the Court. It found that the will was a holograph will in the testator's handwriting, that the testator had full testamentary capacity, that there were no real suspicious circumstances, and that the intrinsic features of the document supported the date on which it purported to have been executed. The Court accepted the testimony of the attesting witnesses and held that the handwriting expert's opinion was inconclusive and could not displace substantive direct evidence.

Conclusion: The will was proved to have been duly executed and attested, and probate was warranted.

---