dissenting.
I have no criticism to make of the principle of law announced in the syllabus of this case, but, after a careful examination of the record, I am unable to concur in the view of the majority of the court that the evidence is insufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my opinion, the evidence establishes the fact that *830the will in question was a' forgery, and that the defendant in this case, with knowledge thereof, attempted to procure its probate with intent to defraud, and was therefore guilty of uttering a false will as true and genuine, knowing the same to be false. No error in any ruling of the court or in any instruction is pointed out in the opinion. The reversal is based solely upon the question of fact. The jury, as well as the trial judge, saw the witnesses and their manner of testifying, and were better able to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than is this court. At most, it is a case in which there. was some conflict in the evidence. It seems to me that the holding of the court is invading the province of the jury.