nwron v. runrm. 21
and afterwards by a will in which he makes no mention of Turpin’s I
children, having provided for them.
It is true that Turpin’s influence with Ralston seems to have been
great, and, so far as it appears from the evidence, this was natural
and to be expected. The eomplainant’s solicitors admit in argu-
ment that Turpin’s accounts were scrupulously correct. When he, as ·
guardian, turned over to Ralston his estate, in addition he handed to
him $13,000 in money and notes, which in a short time had been the
fruit of Turpin’s judicious management- Ralston had been taught
by his parents to confide in Turpin and to trust him. The fact that
the deeds to Turpin’s children were drawn by a lawyer at Turpin’s in-
stance does not seem to have the importance given it by complain-
ant. "If the conduct of the agent appears fair, honest, and bona
jdc, it is immaterial that the deed of gilt may have been drawn up by V
his solicitors without the intervention of a disinterested third party."
Kerr, Fraud & M. 176. See note 4 for authorities cited. It is said that
Turpin solicited Ralston to make the deed. It seems that this solici-
tation simply reminded him that his marriage had revokeda will
made but‘18 days befo1·e that event, which will provided forthe mar-
riage, and also for Turpin’s children, and it seems to make inquiry
whether he had changed the consistent purpose of his life to that time. ,
The suggestion was frankly made to Ralston and his wife. It is true
that Turpin had prepared the deed, and had it with him. Ralston
and his wife promptly consented to sign the deed. It is idle to claim
that Turpin had any dominating influence over the complainant. The
solicitude which counsel attribute to a fear on her part that her rep-
utation would be impaired by Turpin’s disclosures is hardly credi-
ble in the case of a woman of her antecedent experiences, and she
would hardly value temporary good fame in the small town of Stam-
ford as equivalent to a»block of city property in the heart of Macon.
Besides,vthere is not a syllable of evidence that Turpin threatened to
· reveal her past life, but from her own lips we learn he treated her
with respect and kindness. A court of equity cannot indulge con-
jectures of this vague and intangible sort. lt is equally unjustiiiable
to urge that Ralston did not know the value of the property; and,
whether it was of greater or less value than the Third street property,
it is clear from all the evidence that the property conveyed by the
deeds had been intended for Turpin’s children, at the latest, since
1874.
The transaction is said by the complainant to be unnatural,-—First,
because Ralston in the deeds omitted to recall the fact that he had Eve P
living aunts and an abundant supply of cousins. It was even more ·
unnatural, they say, because he did not wait to ascertain if there
would be children by his wife, the complainant. It seems, however,
that his aunts had theretofore made little impression upon his testa-
mentary purposes, except Mrs. Smith, whose place in the will of 1874 ’
was supplied by Ida Blanchard, otherwise Sallie Hardin, in the will of