Russell, C. J.
1. There was no error in allowing the witness to testify , to the alleged, statement of the testatrix that she had made no will. It was admissible as evidence on the question of undue influence and mental capacity of the testatrix. Credille v. Credille, 123 Ga. 673 (51 S. E. 628, 107 Am. St. R. 157); Hubbard v. Rutherford, 148 Ga. 238 (96 S. E. 327); Pennington v. Perry, 156 Ga. 103 (118 S. E. 710); Dennis v. Weekes, 51 Ga. 25.
2. There is no exception to the charge of the court, and the evidence was ■ sufficient to authorize the verdict; and the finding of the jury being approved by the trial judge, his discretion in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
By consent of parties an appeal was entered from the court of ordinary to the superior court of Glynn County. Mrs. Yoak then amended her caveat by adding an additional.ground to the effect that at the time of making said will Mrs. Adah Doerflinger was laboring under a mistake of fact as to the conduct of the caveatrix, her sole heir at law, in that Mrs. Adah Doerflinger erroneously believed that caveatrix was not leading a proper life, and was leading an improper and immoral life; and that because of said mistaken and erroneous idea upon the part of Mrs. Adah Doerflinger, caveatrix, who was her sole heir at law, was practically disinherited. The jury returned a verdict finding “against the will." The propounders filed a motion for a new trial, assigning error upon the general grounds, and before the hearing amended their motion by adding thereto the grounds: (a) No legal evidence was submitted to show or prove that the testatrix was incompetent in any way to make a will at the time she made this will, nor any evidence showing that any undue influence was practiced upon her by E. H. Houseman, one of the propounders. (6) No evidence was submitted showing that N. E. Gillican, one of the propounders, practiced any undue influence on the testatrix in the making of the will, (c) There was no evidence showing that either Mrs. Adah Carr, or her daughter, Mary Carr, beneficiaries under the will, used or practiced any undue influence on the testatrix in the making of the will. (d) There- was no evidence showing that any person acting for the girl Dolores Gillican, one of the beneficiaries under the will, or tbe beneficiary herself, practiced any undue influence on Mrs. Adah Doerflinger in the making of the will, (e) The court erred in allowing the witness Mrs. Julia E. Hodenpyle to testify, over the objection of counsel for propounders, that the testatrix told her, about two years after the making of the will, that she (Mrs. Doerflinger) had made no will. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and the propounders excepted.
B. D. Header and B. Q. Butts, for plaintiffs.
Conyers é Wilcox, for defendant.