20 ·1+mnm1z.u. nnroarsn.
To care for and preserve the resting-place of the dead, from the ear- ·
liest antiquity, has been the province of the friend who "sticketh closer
than a brother."
At the time the will of 1874 was made, Ralston had never met the
complainant. He made no secret of his intention to make Turpin’s
children the legatees of his will. Many witnesses have been exam-
ined who gave evidence that this intention was uniform and gener-
ally known. When Ralston met Ida Blanchard, or Sally Harden, as
he calls her in the will presently to be mentioned, does not appear.
But he married her on the third day of January, 1880, after living
with her as his mistress for several years. On the fifteenth of De-
cember, 1879, he made another will. His mistress had become suffi-
ciently dear to him to drive from his memory his duty to his aunt and
cousins, whom he had provided for in the will of 1874; but her influ-
ence, although amounting to an infatuation which had driven him
from his home, made him the linger-point of scorn for the manhood,
and of contempt and aversion for the womanhood, of the city where
. he was born and reared, had not proven strong enough to eiiace his
determination to provide for the children of his friend, who was the
friend of his father and of his mother, both now dead. The direc-
tions for this will were given with equal explicitness as with the hrst
will. He was well and sober. Turpin was in Georgia; the will was
executed in New York, and he bequeaths the identical property to
Turpin, as trustee for his children, which he conveyed by the subse-
quent deeds when Turpin informed him the will had been revoked
by his marriage with the complainant. This will, with this provis-
ion for the children of Turpin, was signed but 18 days before the mar-
riage. Ralston had kept the will by him for several months. At '
this time Ralston must have been completely under the spell of the
complainants influence. It is unreasonable to say that Turpin in-
fluenced this will. The will of 1874 was still in existence, and that
will gave to Turpin’s children a larger share than the will of 1879,
and to Turpin himself a share of the bequest. What motive could
Turpin have to promote a will which would diminish his children’s
expectancy and destroy his own? It is impossible that this will
should be regarded otherwise than as the evidence of a settled pur-
pose on Ralston’s part to provide for Turpin’s children, and to also
provide for the woman who was soon to bear his name. That the
marriage revoked this will is clear, but it does not appear that Ral-
ston knew this until Turpin informed him of it the ensuing August,
when at once he makes a deed which carries out the provisions of the
will. Two days thereafter he makes another, and eight months after
_ this, and after eight months’ absence from Turpin, he makes another
and a third deed to effect the same design. What more conclusive
evidence of a nxed and settled purpose can be presented? It also
‘ appears that he effects his testamentary purpose for the benefit of Ida
» Ralston, as indicated bythe will of 1879, by a deed in her behalf,