Busrou v. rosrm. 11
cluded as a beneficiary of the last will, would never have been omitted
had Ralston consulted respondent to ascertain and to act upon his
wishes. This child was also omitted in the three deeds subsequently
executed by Ralston. ·
The answer admits that Ralston was a young man of intemper-
ate and dissolute habits, but alleges that when not intoxicated, or
when drinking with moderation, that he was entirely competent to
properly conduct his business affairs, and to intelligently dispose of
his property. Respondent, after his guardianship had terminated,
was retained by Ralston to collect rents, make rent contracts, and, in ‘
a general way, as the real-estate agent, to manage all of his business,
which the respondent, with his partner, undertook and carried on to
the day of Ralston’s death, charging the usual commission therefor. _
Respondent avers that from disinterested friendship for Ralston, he
used all his influence to restrain Ralston from intemperate habits and
low and evil associations, with, however, but little success. He avers
that Ralston became infatuated with the complainant, who was at the
time, and for several years thereafter, a lewd woman, and the regular
y inmate of a common house of ill-fame in the city of Macon, kept for
the purpose of prostitution. Complainant was known as Ida Blanch·
ard. Respondent avers that he used all the persuasive and iniiuen-
tial means which could be compassed by him to break the spell of this
association. The friends and relatives of Ralston labored to the same
end, but the influence of the complainant overcame the eiforts of the
respondent even when united to that of the relatives and friends of
Ralston; that the complainant induced Ralston to go north with her,
and finally, in the early part of 1880, to make her his wife. The re—
spondent learned in 1880, while at Saratoga, that there was strong
reason to believe that Ralston had married complainant, although he
still hoped it was not true. He determined, however, to go to Stam-
ford, in Connecticut, where Ralston and the complainant were keep- ·
ing house together, to learn the true facts, and to ascertain whether,
by this reputed marriage, Ralston had revoked the will heretofore
made in behalf of the respondent’s children. He accordingly went to
Stamford. He saw Ralston and the complainant, and learned from °
them both that they were in truth legally married. During his visit
the respondent, in the presence of the complainant, reminded Ralston
that his marriage with complainant had revoked the will of 1879, and
asked if Ralston still intended to give the property to his (respond~
ent’s) children. Ralston replied unhesitatingly that it was his inten-
tion so to do.
The will of 1879, it is claimed by respondent, had been made by
Ralston a very short time before the marriage, and it also gave to Ida
Blanchard—soo11 to be Ida Ralston—the half of the property which
had been devised in the will of 1874 to Mrs. Laura R. Smith, whose
place in the testamentary inclination of Ralston had been usurped by
the complainant; but the children of Turpin still maintained this po-