statute makes requirement in Illinois

1942(Flinn v. Owen, 58 Ill. 111 .) The testimony of neither of the attesting witnesses is to the effect that the testator signed or acknowledged the will to be his in their presence, in express terms.

1919(Flinn v. Owen, 58 Ill. 111 .) The testimony of neither of the attesting witnesses is to the effect that the testator signed or acknowledged the will to be his in their presence, in express terms.

2022The court continued that “the statute makes no exception based on the purpose for which the evidence is offered.” Id. at 403 . ¶ 110 Santos is directly applicable here where defendant sought the admission of evidence of J.K.’s prior sexual activity, i.e., prior treatment for an STD, for purposes of impeachment.

1974The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that: “We * * * agree with Judge Webster’s well-reasoned opinion that the proper construction of the statute makes the rule, rather than the exception, applicable to this case.” 460 F.2d at 227 .

1924This holding is supported in principle by the decision in Cahill v. Village of Norwood Park, 149 Ill. 156 .

1878"We are of the opinion the court below erred in sustaining demurrers to the several pleas of appellant, in the present indicated in Hyman v. Bayne, supra, and herein alluded to, and for this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.