LUCINDA THOMAS and ETHEL MOORE, by her Husband, JAMES MOORE, Sisters of JOSEPH T. DAYRELL, JR., Deceased, and ETHEL DAYRELL, a Minor Heir of said JOSEPH T. DAYRELL, JR., by her Mother, ELIZABETH WILSON, Appellants, v. ADELAIDE DAYRELL, nominated Exectrix of an Instrument offered for Probate as the Will of said JOSEPH T. DAYRELL, JR., LOUISE DAYRELL and ADELAIDE FERNICIA DAYRELL, named Legatees under said Instrument, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued March 12, 25, 1963. Decided May 9, 1963. 1. All issues of law raised in the pleadings must be decided before trial of issues of fact. 1956 Code, tit. 6, � 620. 2. Where an instrument offered for probate as a will was executed as a result of undue influence, and the subscribing witnesses neither signed in each other’s presence nor saw the testator sign the instrument, it will not be recognized as valid. 3. Undue influence invalidating a will is that which substitutes the wishes of another for those of the testator. 4. A charge to the jury by a trial judge is adequate when all the material facts have been presented to the jury, and the charge correctly explains all the relevant law. 5. A will may be revoked by a subsequent will. 6. In an action on a contested will, the instrument at issue may be admitted into evidence. 7. An instrument which is not recognized as a valid will may nevertheless effectively revoke a prior will. On appeal from a judgment declaring an instrument to be a valid will, the judgment was reversed and the decedent’s estate was declared intestate. Josephus C. N. Howard for appellants. Caranda and T. Gyibli Collins for appellees. 304 D. C. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL 305 delivered the opinion of the Court. The records before us on appeal show that one Joseph Theodore Dayrell, Jr., executed a purported will on May 14, 1946, which instrument we quote hereunder : “I, Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., of the City of Monrovia, Montserrado County, Republic of Liberia, being of sound mind and disposing memory, conscious of the certainty of death, do hereby make, publish and declare this to be my last will and testament, in manner and form as follows, to wit: it T. I will and direct that my executrix hereinafter nominated shall, as soon as possible immediately after my demise, defray my funeral expenses and just debts. “2. I will and bequeath to my wife, Adelaide Florence Dayrell, my dwelling house at the corner of Ashum and Johnson Streets, Monrovia, same being Lot Number 4, with all the buildings and appurtenances thereto belonging, and after her death, to my daughters Florence Adelaide, Malisa Louise and Adelaide Fernicia, together with all other children that might be by me begotten by my present wife, Florence Adelaide Dayrell, to them and their heirs forever. II 3. I bequeath one of my evening apparels to my daughter Ethel Theodocia, to her use forever, all the rest of my personal effects and furnitures, I give them to my wife Adelaide Florence and to her children forever. “4. I hereby designate, nominate and appoint my wife Adelaide Florence Dayrell, sole executrix of this, my last will and testament, and because of the implicit confidence I have in my said executrix, to faithfully and honestly discharge the duties herein required of her, it is my desire 306 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS and request that she be not required to give any bond, nor shall any inventory of my estate be taken ; and that the only thing which the court will have to do with this my will, is to have same probated according to law. “In witness whereof I have this r4th day of May, 1946, hereunto set my hand and signature in the presence of attesting witnesses. [Sgd.] “JOSEPH THEODORE DAYRELL, JR., Testator. “This instrument consisting of one sheet of written matter, was signed by testator, in our presence and in each others’ presence as attesting witnesses, upon his request. [ Sgd.] “ROBERT T. PHILIPS, Witness. [Sgd.] “L. Kwia JOHNSON, SR., Witness.” Almost three calendar years thereafter, the same testator, in an attempt to revoke the will quoted supra, executed another will on April 29, 1949, in which he included a clause of revocation, and which was subsequently offered for probate. Then and there, Adelaide F. Dayrell, appellee in this case, appeared through her counsel in the probate court, and filed objections to the probate of the 1949 will. After pleadings were rested in the contested will case, and the records forwarded to the circuit court for a jury trial according to law, the abovequoted 1946 will, the subject of the appeal now before us, was introduced in the probate court, read and sent forward to the circuit court to form a part of the records in the case then pending before that court for adjudication. A verdict having been found in favor of the objectant in the contested will case, an appeal was prosecuted before the Supreme Court. On a final determination, the judgment of the court below, was affirmed, and the contested will was set aside, which necessarily au- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 307 thorized the estate to be administered as an intestate one. A mandate to that effect was accordingly sent to the circuit court. Quite strangely, these orders from this Court, communicated through its mandate to the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, at the close of its March, 1957, term, were never executed by that court. Instead, the judge proceeded to detach the purported will of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., made in the year 1946, which was not the subject of the mandate, and had only been made a part of the records in the then contested will case; and this he ordered forwarded to the probate court for its action, in absolute disregard to the orders of this Court. Thereupon, the objectants filed the following objections : “Objectants in the above-entitled cause most respectfully object to the probation of the purported last will and testament of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., for the following legal and factual reasons : Because objectants submit that, according to the Supreme Court’s decision during its March, 1957, term, the will of Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., dated April 29, 1949, was declared void and ordered returned to the Monthly and Probate Court, Montserrado County to be disposed of in keeping with the decision of the Supreme Court. It 2. And also because objectants further submit that the mandate of the Honorable Supreme Court has not been carried out by the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Montserrado County, in that the will of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., dated April 29, 1949, has not been returned to the Monthly and Probate Court by the resident judge of the circuit court who received the mandate, and who should have acted upon the same, but who, instead, sent the will of the late 308 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr. dated May 14, 1946 which was never before the Supreme Court, and on which no judgment was ever rendered by said Court, to be disposed of in keeping with law, quite contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court of Liberia and its mandates. ” 3. And also because objectants submit that the resident judge of the circuit court had no instruction from the Supreme Court of Liberia to transmit to the Monthly and Probate Court of Montserrado County, the uncontested will of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., dated May 14, 1946, to be disposed of according to law, which will was never passed upon by the Supreme Court of Liberia. The Supreme Court of Liberia, in clear and plain language, directed the resident judge of the circuit court to return the will of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., dated April 29, 1949, which was disposed of by said court on appeal, to be disposed of in keeping with law. Objectants ask the court to take judicial notice of a certificate from the clerk of said court hereto attached. 4. And also because objectants submit that the will of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., dated April 29, 1949, having been declared void by the Supreme Court of Liberia, and said Court having, by mandate, ordered the probate court to resume jurisdiction over the said will of 1949 and carry out the mandate of said Court, the said estate became intestate and should have been managed by the Curator of Intestate Estates for Montserrado County under the orders of the court. And also because objectants submit that since the will of 1946 was not passed upon by the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia, nor does LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 309 said 1946 will form a part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Liberia, this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the said purported will. “6. And also because objectants further submit that the purported will of 1946, mysteriously appearing before this court after the decision of the Supreme Court and before its enforcement by the lower court, was illegally and improperly forwarded to this court by the clerk of the circuit court, thereby disobeying the mandate of the Supreme Court. “7. And also because objectants submit that this court has no jurisdiction over the will of 1946, since it was never contested and passed upon by the Supreme Court of Liberia; and if the respondents, for any reason, wanted to offer said will of 1946 after the decision of the Supreme Court of Liberia making void the contested will of 1949, they should have filed a petition offering the said purported will into probate. But attempting to offer the said will of 1946, which is supposed to be in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, as a part of the record in the defeated will case, which has been exposed to the general public at the trial of the 1949 contested will case, and remained exposed for almost eight years before being now presented for probate, is irregular, illegal and inconsistent. “8. And also because objectants submit that the purported will of 1946 was made under influence and pressure, and not by the free will of the testator, because respondent, Adelaide F. Dayrell, has put on record that since she was not joined as one of the grantees in testator’s deed for said property, she was determined to put him in court, and being under such threat, in- 310 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS fluence and pressure, he was compelled to execute a will bequeathing all of his property to her and her children in order to keep him from being sued by his wife, Adelaide F. Dayrell, one of the respondents in this action. “9. And also because objectants further submit that the said will of 1946 was not made of the free will and pleasure of the testator, but was made under pressure, undue influence and threat of lawsuit by his wife, Adelaide F. Dayrell, because, after making said will, testator called in one Mrs. Gertrude Tay and read the will to her, and asked if that will would please his wife, Adelaide, meaning thereby for him to have peace in his home, Mrs. Tay being his wife’s personal friend, and she replied : ‘She should be satisfied now, but your daughter will not agree.’ “10. And also because objectants further submit that the said will of 1946 was made under threat, undue influence and pressure, because the testator, Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., was afraid to will his legitimate daughter, Ethel Theodocia Dayrell, who was, at the time of the making of the will, only thirteen years of age, any of his real and personal property save one used evening apparel, notwithstanding she was a minor and his estate was lucrative.” To the above-quoted objections, the respondents, in their answer and in their attempt to traverse the grounds of objections, besides their plea of general denial, merely averred that Counts 1 to 8 of the objections were without legal merit, self-serving and contemptuous, and should therefore be ruled out; and in Count 4 of their answer denied the truthfulness of Counts 9, to and 11, on the ground that Adelaide Florence Dayrell, the sole executrix under the will in question, holds a joint purpose right in LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 311 Lot Number 4 mentioned in Clause 2 of said will of May 14, 1946, with her husband, the testator. When this case came for hearing before the circuit court, with Judge Samuel B. Cole presiding, that court refused to pass upon the jurisdictional issue which the objectants had raised as a plea in bar and ruled on the pleadings as follows : “This court says, after hearing the reading of the pleadings in this case, as well as arguments pro et con, we observe that the main point in the law issues is whether or not the objections were filed within statutory time. A recourse to the records shows that the notice for the probation of the last will and testament of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., subject of this suit was placarded on April 26, 1957, with this provision: `Person or persons having legal objections to the probation and registration of said last will and testament, are hereby required to file in the clerk’s office within 3o days from the date above-mentioned, which will be on May 27, 1957.’ We observe further that a caveat to this notice was filed on May 27, 1957, the deadline date for any person having objections to said will to file. Three days after the filing of this caveat, that is to say, on May 3o, 1957, the objections were filed. In the opinion of the court, the filing of objections should be made ten days after notice is given to court that any party has objections to said probation. The court takes this position because it is possible that anyone having objections to the probation of a will might not have seen or known that a notice thereof has been placarded before the deadline date. It is our opinion, therefore, that the objections were filed within statutory time. This case is ruled to trial by a jury to ascertain whether or not the will is .a genuine one; that is to say, whether or not said will was made .under undue influence.” Upon this ruling of the court below, the case found its , 312 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS way before a jury which, after deliberation, returned a verdict declaring the will valid ; and after the usual preliminaries, the court entered its judgment affirming the same. It is from this verdict, judgment and other rulings, that the objectants excepted and appealed their cause on a bill of exceptions containing eight counts which we shall review in this opinion as far as they relate to the case. In Count i of the bill of exceptions, appellants allege that on April io, 1958, the trial judge, in passing on the law issues raised in the pleadings, failed to consider them as the law requires, especially the issues raised in the objections, but simply ruled the case to trial to ascertain whether the will in question is genuine or not, without passing upon any of the legal issues raised. In considering this count of the bill, it is our opinion that the trial judge erred in refusing to pass upon all of the legal issues raised in the objections and pleadings as the law directs, especially since objectants had attacked the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. Our Civil Procedure Law makes it mandatory that, at any trial, all issues of law raised by the parties shall be disposed of first. 1956 Code, tit. 6, � 62o. In the case at bar, apparently the only matter which claimed the judge’s attention was that raised in respondents’ answer, in so far as it attacked the filing time of the objections. Count 1 of the bill of exceptions is therefore sustained. In Count 2, appellants contend that the trial judge’s failure to pass upon the points raised in the objections simply narrowed the issue to the genuineness of the purported will, notwithstanding objectants had charged Adelaide Dayrell, one of the respondents with having induced, coerced and unduly influenced the testator to make said will and that: “Your Honor’s questions to the witnesses give objectants the impression that a genuine will, as referred LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 313 to by you, only requires the signature of the testator to a will, regardless of whether signed in the presence of attesting witnesses and in the presence of each of them, and regardless of whether such a will was signed under undue influence, and coercion or not; and that, if once the signature is proved to be that of the testator, the will is ipso facto genuine.” Before taking recourse to the law controlling, we will first address our attention to the records before us. Robert Phillips, one of the attesting witnesses to the purported will, testified as follows on direct examination : “Q. Please tell the court and jury to the best of your knowledge and recollection whether or not you are aware that the said Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., during his lifetime, executed a last will and testament. “A. I am aware of the fact that during the lifetime of Mr. Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., he did execute a will. “Q. I hand you, Mr. Witness, this instrument of writing marked by the court Exhibit R-i. Please look at it carefully and tell the court and jury what you recognize it to be. “A. I am definitely sure that the signatures of Robert S. Phillips and Joseph Theodore Dayrell are seemingly original. “Q. I hand you again the instrument, Mr. Witness. Please look at it carefully and tell the court and jury, to the best of your recollection, whose signatures you recognize thereon, and whether or not they were affixed in your presence? “A. As I remember signing a will of Mr. Dayrell. As I look at this will, the signatures of Robert S. Phillips and Joseph Dayrell are seemingly original. “Q. Look at this instrument again which I hand you, Mr. Witness, and tell the court and jury whether you recognize the signature immediately appear- 314 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS ing after yours on said instrument, and whether or not it was affixed in your presence? “A. At the signing of a will of the late Joseph Dayrell, this was done in the presence of the two of us ; that is, Mr. Joseph T. Dayrell and myself. I was not present when the second witness signed the bill. I recognize the name to be L. Kwia Johnson, but I cannot say this is his signature because I am not acquainted with his signature.” That is a portion of the testimony of attesting witness Robert S. Phillips ; and again, on cross-examination, he gave these answers : “Q. Objectants have filed objections to the probation and registration of the will in point on the grounds that it was made under undue influence, pressure and threats brought upon the testator by his wife, who was at the time Mrs. Adelaide F. Dayrell. Please say to the best of your recollection, and as one of the confidential or personal friends of testator, if you know anything in connection with testator being forced to sign this will. By this will, I mean the one marked by the court Exhibit R-1. “A. I do recall that the will that was witnessed by me was sealed and placed in the custody of Mr. Dayrell’s father. After a period, there came a suspicion that his will had been intercepted because, when it was delivered to his father, it was sealed. This suspicion grew out of expressions he heard with regard to his will which was not known to persons who had become in knowledge. It was then he went to check on his will, and there he found that it had been intercepted. Result of which he decided to change his entire plans in his will. This is as much as I know about it. The will that I witnessed was voluntarily done.” Besides this testimony by one of the attesting witnesses LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 315 to the purported will, another witness of the appellants took the stand ; and here is a portion of her testimony : “Q. What is your name, and where do you live? “A. Gertrude L. Tay. I live in Schieffelin. “Q. Please say whether or not you can recall Mr. Dayrell showing you a will and asking you if said will would satisfy his wife, Adelaide Dayrell. “A. Mr. and Mrs. Dayrell jointly bought the property he got the deed for. The deed did not have her name on it. She was dissatisfied. She contended that Mr. Dayrell should have her name on the deed because they jointly bought the property, as her salary went towards the upkeep of the house, and his salary towards the purchase of the land. After the deed was shown to Mrs. Dayrell and she became dissatisfied, she sent to Mrs. Fuller for me to show me the trick that was played on her after spending her money so many years on the home, and the deed only carried his name as well as his children. He said that he did order the lawyer to prepare the deed like that, but ordered that said deed should have both Mr. and Mrs. Dayrell’s names placed therein. Mr. Dayrell then said to his wife : ‘I can’t take this deed to the court today, but you wait.’ Few weeks after that, Dayrell sent for me to his office. It was on a Wednesday morning. He said: ‘Friend Gertrude, look at this l’ He took out a brown envelope from the safe, and took out an envelope from that brown envelope, and handed it to me and asked me to read it. I told him that I did not have my spectacles, so I could not read it. Then he took the will out and read it to me and said : ‘I have a God to face. Adelaide and I bought this piece of land. Her contention is right, but I can’t fix the deed over again. But the error can be cured in my will and I have done 316 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS it.’ He said further : ‘If I should die before Adelaide, she is still in possession of her land, she is the only administratrix.’ He said : ‘The land goes to her and her children. My other child can only have possession of my wearing apparrel.’ I asked him : ‘What will she do with your clothes?’ He said : ‘She can sell them and raise the money; but this land which Adelaide and myself bought; you know all about it; I could not be unfair to the children begotten by Adelaide, by sharing the real estate with another child. I am taking this will now to the bank and deposit it there. The duplicate I will take home and keep it there.’ He said further : ‘This will will stop everything because my wife, Adelaide, is not satisfied.’ ” By reason of the absence of controlling statutory law our courts have been compelled, in contested will matters, to be guided by common-law authorities. Hence, we shall direct our attention to some common law theory, before deciding upon merits of Count 2 of the bill of exceptions. Witness Robert Phillips testified that he did not sign the purported will in the presence of attesting witness, L. Kwa Johnson, and therefore could not identify his signature as the genuine one. He also testified that he subsequently learned that the will which he had signed as a subscribing witness had been intercepted, and that the testator contemplated destroying the same. Further, he stated that he recollected signing a will, and recognized the two signatures attached to the will shown to him on the stand as bearing the signatures of himself and Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr. In our opinion, such testimony, coming from a witness who subscribed to the instrument as an attesting witness is incomplete, since he never saw the testator sign the purported will, and the attesting witnesses did not sign the instrument in the presence of each other. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 317 Gertrude Tay testified that respondent Adelaide Florence Dayrell became dissatisfied when she learned that the deed for Lot Number 4 was issued exclusively in the name of the testator and his heirs. Testifying further, she stated that the respondent threatened the testator with court litigation if he did not join her in title to the property, and that the purported will would stop everything because Adelaide was not satisfied. This evidence is sufficient, in our opinion to invalidate the instrument as a will under principles of law which have been authoritatively summarized as follows : “Threats of violence, litigation, personnal estrangement or other matters producing fear, which place the mind of the testator in subjection and destroy his free agency, constitute undue influence and invalidate a will made as a result of them.” 40 CYC. 1149 Wills. Having taken recourse to the law controlling, we have no alternative other than to sustain Count 2 of the bill. Counts 3 and 4 having been covered by the foregoing review of Count z, the necessity is not apparent for us to explore them any further. Count 5 is thus laid : “And also because . . . the objectants objected to the admission into evidence of the purported will, which objections the court overruled. . . .” The court below made the following ruling on objections against the admission of the purported will into evidence : “The court says that the document marked by the court Exhibit R-1 is a will contested in the probate court, and which was sent to this court for the jury to say whether or not it is the genuine will of the testator. The records in this case disclose that witness L. K. Johnson and witness John C. A. Gibson, marshal of the Honorable Supreme Court, testified that the signature of the testator on said document is the genuine signature of the testator. Under our law, when a document is sufficiently identified and is relevant to the 318 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS issue at bar, said document should be admitted into evidence to be sent to the jury who will decide on its credibility. In view of the above, the document marked by the court Exhibit R-1 is hereby admitted as written evidence.” The contested will was the subject matter before the court, and once identified as such, it would have been error on the part of the trial judge to have denied its admission into evidence when its credibility rested exclusively with the jury. Without its admission, the jury would have been unable to pass upon its validity or invalidity. Hence Count 5 of appellants’ bill is not sustained. Count 6 raises several questions of law and fact on which appellants’ counsel requested the court charge the jury because the court had failed to pass upon them in ruling on the law issues. It is the right of a party to request the court to charge the jury on any point of law on which the minds of the jury might not be sufficiently clear; but as triers of the facts, it is their right to weigh the evidence presented in any given case. In this particular instance, all of the facts were presented to the jury, and the law in relation to the case had been explained to the jury by the judge. Therefore, it cannot be conceded by us that the judge erred in his procedure as contended in this count of the bill ; hence, the same is dismissed. We have endeavored to review herein all of the important points of issue involved in the case according to the records before us. We have culled some of the evidence adduced at the trial ; but before arriving at a conclusion, we shall make one or two important comments. In 1946, the will which is the subject of this case is supposed to have been made by the testator. On April 29, 1949, the testator made another will containing the following clause : “I, Joseph Theodore Dayrell, Jr., of the City of Monrovia, Montserrado County, Republic of Liberia, LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 319 being of sound mind and disposing memory and being conscious of the uncertainty of human life, do hereby make, publish and declare this as my last will and testament in manner followed, revoking all other wills heretofore made by me.” When this will was offered for probate, serious objections were raised against it which finally defeated the will. Thereafter, and without legal precedent, through the clandestine and deliberate act of Judge Morris, and in absolute disregard of a mandate from this Court, the will of 1946 which had been effectively revoked by the act of the testator was ordered transmitted to the probate court to be probated and registered–an outright act of contempt. When this case was called for hearing before us, we particularly inquired of appellees’ counsel as to the possibility of the will of 1946 being taken from the records in the former contested will case, and offered in probate, when the mandate of this Court in the former case had not been enforced and executed ; and his reply was to the effect that the former case bore no relationship whatever to the one in point. What a novelty! It is also evident that the above-quoted clause of the � contested will of 1949 revokes the will of 1946 in its entirety, since the property which the appellees would now claim under the 1946 will is the same property which the testator distributed among other persons by the subsequent will of 1949. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be reversed. The will in question is declared invalid, and the clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below ordering it to direct the probate court to resume jurisdiction and declare the estate of the late Joseph T. Dayrell, Jr., intestate, and administer the same according to the law controlling. Costs against the appellees. And it is hereby so ordered. Reversed.