SPIRITUALISM. In law the significance of Spiritualism is chiefly involved with the conveyance of land and the disposition of property by will by Spiritualists. It is gen erally held that belief in Spiritualism is not necessarily such evidence of insanity as to make one incompetent to make a conveyance of real estate ; Levns v. Arbuckle, 85 Ia. 335, 52 N. W. 237, 16 L. R. A. 677 ; and in itself is not insanity ;,In re Spencer, 96 Cal. 448, 31 Pac. 453; Owen v. Crumbaugh, 228 Ill. 380, 81 N. E. 1044, 119 Am. St. Rep. 442, 10 Ann. Cas. 606 ; O'Dell v. Goff, 149 Mich. 152, 112 N. W. 736, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 989, 119 Am. St. Rep. 662; In re Keeler's Will, 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 157; testamentary capacity is not destroyed by a mere belief in Spiritualism ; Steinkuehler v. Wempner, 169 Ind. 154, 81 N. E. 482, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 673; In re Smith's Will, 52 Wis. 548, 8 N. W. 616, 9 N. W. 665, 38 Am. Rep. 756; Otto v. Doty, 61 Ia. 23, 15 N. W. 578 ; or in witchcraft; Kelly v. Miller, 39 Miss. 19; Addington v. Wilson, 5 Ind. 137, 61 Am. Dec. 81; In re Forman's Will, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 297; Van Guysling v. Van Kuren, 35 N. Y. 70; and belief in trans migration of human souls, strong enough to induce a bequest to a society for the preven tion of cruelty to animals, will not render a will invalid ; Bonard's Will, 16 Abb. Prac. (Ni S. N. 'Y.) 128.
The test seems to be whether the testator merely believed in Spiritualism and made his will accordingly, or whether he was so dominated by the will of others or by alleged statements coming from deceased persons, that the testamentary writing was in fact not his, but the will of some one else ; Robin son v. Adams, 62 Me. 369, 16 Am. Rep. 473.
The will may be valid although he believed in the statements of mediums;' Chafin Will Case, 32 Wis. 560; Middleditch v. Wil liams, 45 N. J. Eq. 726, 17 Atl. 826, 4 L. R. A. 738 ; Brown v. Ward, 53 Md. 376, 36 Am. Rep. 422 ; but where the medium used his power to procure a conveyance, it was set aside; L. R. 6 Eq. 655; and so in the case of a will; Thompson v. Hawks, 14 Fed. 902 ; Greenwood & Smith v. Cline, 7 Or. 17; so where the testator follows blindly the sup posed directions of spirits ; O'Dell v. Goff, 149 Mich. 152, 112 N. W. 736, 10 L. R. A (N. S.) 989, 119 Am. St. Rep. 662.
It is for the jury to decide whether or not there was undue influence ; Steinkuehier v. Wempner, 169 Ind. 154, 81 N. E. 482, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 673. Witnesses cannot testify that • testator was a monomaniac merely be cause he believed in Spiritualism; O'Dell v. Goff, 149 Mich. 152, 112 N. W. 736, 10 L. R A. (N. S.) 989, 119 Am. St. Rep. 662.
Proof that a defendant professed to be a medium, and charged a fee for a séance held with the assistance of others, is sufficient to convict of a conspiracy with intent to de fraud ; People v. Gilman, 121 Mich. 187, 80 N. W. 4, 46 L. R. A. 218, 80 Am. St. Rep. 490. See Lewis v. Arbuckle, 85 Iowa, 335, 52 N. W. 237, 16 L. R. A. 677; Appeal of Kimberly, 68 Conn. 428, 36 Atl. 846, 57 Am. St. Rep. 101, 37 L. R. A. 270, and notes ; WILL.