was objected that the act applied to only one city in the State, because Chicago, alone, had parks under the control of park commissioners. It was held that such fact did not render the act local or special, and that it was not requisite that the act should be presently applicable to every person or to every city in the State. It applied to every city having at the time of its passage, or at any time thereafter, parks under the control of park commissioners. The situation here is the same in principle. That proximity to a church, seminary, school house, hospital, cemetery, or other public or private religious, educational or eleemosynary institution, furnishes a good reason for excluding dramshops from the neighborhood is generally recognized. The existence of this condition furnishes a reasonable basis of classification, and it is this principle which authorizes the legislature, in the exercise of the police power, to pass the act in question. The act is general in terms, and, whether the conditions described exist in one city or many, it applies to all places now within its terms or that may hereafter be within its terms. The classification is just and reasonable and does not violate the constitution. People v. Board of Supervisors, 185 Ill. 288.

The case of Devine v. Commissioners of Cook County, 84 Ill. 590, differs from this in that the statute there, by its terms, while purporting to classify counties by population, designated the county in such a way as to preclude the law from ever having any application to any other county than the county of Cook, and it was held that such designation was a mere device not based on any principle of classification but intended to evade the constitutional provision against special legislation. There was no classification upon any just or reasonable principle.

The license granted to the plaintiff in error by the city of Quincy was not a contract. It gave him no vested rights and constituted no defense to the information. People v. McBride, 234 Ill. 146. Judgment affirmed.

EDITH TENLEY NORTON, Appellee, vs. GEORGE H. CLARK et al. Appellants.

Opinion filed February 23, 1912-Rehearing denied April 3, 1912.

I. WILLS—what evidence is immaterial upon issue of undue influence. In a suit to contest a will, where one of the grounds is undue influence by the chief beneficiary, evidence tending to show the relations of the chief beneficiary with the husband of the testatrix, or how he treated him, or whether he sought to obtain or did obtain property from him, is irrelevant and immaterial.

2. SAME-right of contestant to prove conversations with testatrix. The contestant is entitled to prove declarations of the testatrix, so far as they are relevant to the question of her mental capacity, although they occurred in conversations, and, necessarily, may prove so much of the conversations as will enable the jury to understand the declaration.

3. SAME when testimony as to what witness said to testatrixis properly excluded. In a will contest case, where improper relations between the testatrix and the chief beneficiary are alleged in support of the charge of undue influence, it is proper to exclude a statement by a physician to the effect that when the testatrix told him her daughter was charging her with such improper conduct he said to her to pay no attention to it-that everybody knew it was false.

4. SAME―general rule as to proving conversations. Where one party proves a part of a conversation the other party has a right to all that was said at the same time concerning the same subject, since it may qualify or explain what has been testified to; and if a party proves what was said by the adverse party to the suit as evidence against him, such adverse party has a right to prove all that was said by him in the same conversation, provided, only, it relates to the subject matter of the suit.

5. SAME-what testimony by physician is competent. In a will contest case, where illicit relations between the testatrix and the chief beneficiary are alleged in support of a charge of undue influence, a physician who had attended the testatrix for a period of fifteen years and was familiar with her physical condition may testify that during all that period her condition was such as to render it very improbable, if not impossible, for her to have committed the acts alleged.

6. SAME when conversation between testatrix and attorney is not privileged. The fact that a witness has transacted business

for the testatrix as her attorney does not preclude his testifying to her mental capacity, and if it is sought to prove by him anything concerning the testamentary disposition of her property, her conversation on that matter, if otherwise competent, should not be excluded as a privileged communication.

7. SAME-instruction authorizing recovery if evidence preponderates slightly is not applicable to will contest case. In ordinary cases, where a mere preponderance of the evidence is sufficient, it is not error to give an instruction authorizing a recovery if the evidence preponderates in favor of the plaintiff or complainant, although but slightly; but the rule is otherwise in a will contest case where mental incapacity is charged, as in such case there is the presumption of sanity, which the law raises in favor of every person and which cannot be disregarded.

8. SAME declarations of testatrix not admissible to show fraud or undue influence. Declarations of the testatrix are not admissible to show that the will was executed under duress or undue influence or to show fraud, but they may be proved where they tend to show her mental condition at the time of the execution of the will, or so near to the time that the same state of affairs must have existed.

9. SAME when objection that instruction is based upon incompetent evidence cannot be urged. If no objection is made to the introduction of incompetent evidence, it cannot be urged, on appeal, that an instruction was based upon the hypothesis of fact which such incompetent evidence tended to prove.

IO. SAME-instructions giving particular force to testimony of certain witnesses are improper. Instructions are erroneous which call attention to particular witnesses or single out a fact and give it undue prominence and controlling effect in the case.

II. SAME-effect of illicit relations between testatrix and chief beneficiary. The existence of illicit relations between the testatrix and the chief beneficiary does not raise any presumption of undue influence unless other improper influence is shown to have been exerted to induce the making of the will, in which case the illicit relations may be considered, with the other facts, in determining whether the influence was undue.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. GEORGE W. THOMPSON, Judge, presiding.

EDWARD J. KING, and WALTER C. FRANK, (FLETCHER CARNEY, of counsel,) for appellants.

CHIPERFIELD & CHIPERFIELD, CHARLES J. TRAINOR, MALCOLM G. JEFFRIES, and ADDISON J. BOUTELLE, for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CARTWRIGHT delivered the opinion of the

court:

The appellee, Edith Tenley Norton, is the daughter and only heir-at-law of Sarah A. Tenley, who died at the age of fifty-nine years on October 23, 1909, under a surgical operation for the removal of a tumor, in the hospital at Galesburg. Three days before her death and in contemplation of the expected operation she executed her last will and testament, by which she bequeathed to appellee $500, to her nephew, Roy W. Burden, $10,000, to three friends $100 each and to another friend $200, and gave the remainder of her estate to her son-in-law, George H. Clark, who had been the husband of appellee but had been divorced from her. The will was admitted to probate, and appellee filed her bill in the circuit court of Knox county against the appellants, who were the legatees and devisee under the will, and the executor of the will, to set it aside, alleging that at the time of its execution the testatrix was not of sound mind and memory and that she executed it under undue influence exercised by George H. Clark. Aside from general charges of undue influence the specific fact alleged was, that the testatrix and Clark for many years had maintained illicit relations with each other, and that Clark threatened to expose such relations to the public unless the testatrix yielded to him and executed the will by bequeathing to him the greater part of her estate. Answers were filed denying the charges of mental incapacity and undue influence, and an issue was formed and submitted to a jury whether the writing was the will of the testatrix. The jury returned a verdict that the writing was not her will, and the court, after overruling a motion for

a new trial, entered a decree setting aside the will. From that decree an appeal was taken to this court.

Sarah A. Tenley was the wife and widow of James M. Tenley, a merchant at Farmington, Illinois. They had one daughter, the complainant, Edith Tenley Norton, who was married about the year 1887 to the defendant George H. Clark. From the time of the marriage the parties all lived together as one family, and in January, 1889, a child was born of the marriage. About 1893 the complainant went to a medical school at Keokuk, Iowa, and in the same year and about the time of the World's Fair she went to Chicago, where she has since resided. Her husband, the defendant Clark, was in the shoe business in Farmington and continued to live with the family. The child also lived there most of the time but was with his mother in Chicago awhile, and after returning to Farmington died on April 14, 1895. The complainant attended a medical school in Chicago and graduated in 1897, and since that time has practiced medicine in Chicago. She never returned to Farmington except as a visitor or temporarily. She obtained a divorce from Clark in 1902, and in 1904 was married to her present husband, Fay Norton. After the complainant left home the relations between her and her mother were always friendly except when Clark was involved. She was at enmity with him, and, at least after the divorce, she objected to his being at the home or having anything to do with the family, and when he was there she would not go there. Clark continued to live in the family until about 1895, when he sold out his shoe business and left Farmington. After that he was a commercial traveler or in business in Chicago, and in 1904 he was married again, and after that his residence was on a farm near Beloit, Wisconsin. He came to Farmington occasionally and stopped at the Tenley home, and was called for at different times and always responded by coming and rendering any service required. In October, 1907, James M. Tenley,