Tbe caveat was filed upon tbe ground of insufficient mental capacity and undue influence. Tbe issue as to undue influence was not answered by tbe jury and tbe appeal depends solely on tbe finding tbat the deceased did not have mental capacity to make a will. Tbe first six exceptions are to testimony brought out upon cross-examination of tbe witnesses for tbe propounders, and cannot be sustained.
Tbe first exception is because tbe witness wbo bad testified favorably as to tbe mental condition of tbe deceased was asked as to contradictory statements made by himself prior to tbe trial. Tbis was competent.
Tbe second exception is without point, as tbe testimony objected to was stricken out by tbe court on- motion of tbe propounders.
Tbe third exception was to permitting tbe propounders’ witness to state on cross-examination tbat from bis experience and observation of tbe deceased be was entirely under tbe domination, direction, and control of tbe Christian Scientist people, wbo were tbe principal beneficiaries of tbe will. Tbis was competent on tbe third issue and also as tending to contradict tbis witness’s testimony as to tbe mental capacity of tbe deceased to make a will.
Tbe fourth exception is tbat tbe same witness stated on cross-examination tbat in bis judgment tbe deceased was crazy and of unsound mind when be signed tbe will. Tbis was competent, Clary v. Clary, 24 N. C., 78, and besides, because it was in direct contradiction of the testimony of tbis witness, wbo was a witness to tbe will and wbo bad stated on bis examination in chief tbat tbe deceased was of sound mental condition when be signed tbe will.
Tbe fifth exception was to tbe refusal to strike out tbat portion of tbis witness’s evidence on cross-examination because on reexamination tbe witness was of opinion tbat tbe deceased was of sound mind. Tbe witness having stated bis testimony differently, both phases of it should have been presented to tbe jury.
Tbe sixth exception, as to tbe dependent condition of tbe wife of tbe deceased, and her inability to take care of herself, was competent in corroboration of tbe evidence a.s to tbe mental incapacity of tbe defendant, since be devised tbe bulk of bis property to tbe Christian Scientist people, leaving bis wife and daughter, wbo bad supported him for so many years, practically destitute.
Tbe seventh exception was for tbe admission of tbe opinion of -the witness Mrs. Bell as to tbe condition of her father’s mind for a few *140years prior to bis death. The, eighth and ninth exceptions, as to the influence exerted by the propounders over the deceased, it is unnecessary to consider, since the jury did not pass upon the issue as to undue influence. If they considered this testimony at all, it could have been only from the light it threw upon the issue as to mental incapacity, and for that purpose it was competent.
The tenth and eleventh exceptions were to the testimony of the daughter of the deceased that she practically supported the family, and this was competent in corroboration as tending to show the unsound mental condition of the testator in devising his property away from his wife and daughters.
• The twelfth exception was to the testimony that the mind of the testator had become unsound and his conversation that of a monomaniac on the subject of Christian Science.
The prayer of the propounder.s to instruct the jury that the evidence was not sufficient to set the will aside was properly refused. The issue was one for the jury upon the whole evidence.
It was in evidence that the deceased did not support or provide for his family, and that his daughter paid the grocery bill and meat bill .and paid the rent, and that the other children contributed to their mother’s support. Though the deceased had an income of $50 per month, he contributed only $7 for the .support of the family. By his will he devised the small amount of personal property he had and $2,500 in real estate to his family and $20,000 to the Christian Science Church. There was evidence as to his sanity, both pro and con, and the jury upon proper instructions found that the deceased did not have sufficient mental capacity to make the will. This was a matter within the province of the jury, and we cannot disturb it.
The judge in a very full, clear, and impartial charge, to which no exception was taken, instructed the jury, among other things, as follows:
“The fact that a man gives his property other than to his relatives and their dependents' does not of itself vitiate his will, and any man who has testamentary capacity and is not unduly influenced to execute a will can give his property to any body or any one that he pleases; he can give it to individuals; he may give it to a person whom he never knew; he can give it all to a religious denomination, to any church, to any nonreligious society, to any charitable organization; he has the right to give it to one or more persons or objects to the exclusion of all others; but it is a circumstance a jury may consider in connection with other evidence in passing upon a man’s mental capacity; and if you find that he has testamentary capacity, and is not influenced unduly, he has the right to give his property to any one and anywhere; that it is not illegal and not contrary to public policy. You have no right to find as a fact that this is not the will of H. J. Staub because he gave *141bis property to tbe Cbristian Science Cburcb, if be bad tbe testamentary capacity and was not unduly influenced. He bad tbe right to give it wherever’he pleased, if be bad tbe testamentary capacity and was not unduly influenced.”
Tbe court gave tbe prayers for instruction asked by tbe appellants. Tbe court defined testamentary capacity: “A person has testamentary capacity within tbe meaning of tbe law if be.has a clear understanding of tbe nature and extent of bis act, of tbe kind and value of tbe property devised, of tbe persons who are tbe natural objects of bis bounty, and of tbe manner in which be desires to dispose of property to be distributed”; and, further: “Tbe law presumes that every man possesses mental and testamentary capacity, and be or they who allege that be does not possess such testamentary capacity, upon them tbe law throws tbe burden of proof to offer evidence that satisfies tbe jury of tbe absence or tbe lack of tbe possession of such mental or testamentary capacity,” and that tbe burden was upon tbe caveators to show that tbe testator did not possess such mental capacity, adding that if tbe jury find that issue in tbe affirmative it need not pass upon tbe third' issue as to undue influence.
Upon review of tbe whole ease we find