Propounders contend that under S. v. Hauser, 202 N. C., 738, 164 S. E., 457, S. v. Journegan, 185 N. C., 700, 117 S. E., 27, In re Peterson, 136 N. C., 13, 48 S. E., 561, Crowell v. Kirk, 14 N. C., 355, and other decisions to like effect, the evidence of Mrs. Nicholson invaded the province of the jury, and, for this reason, should have been excluded.

In reply, the caveators say the answer of the witness, even if somewhat objectionable, cannot be held for reversible error when taken in connection with the question propounded and the whole record. In re Will of Creecy, 190 N. C., 301, 129 S. E., 822; In re Brooch's Will, 172 N. C., 520, 90 S. E., 681. This was the view of the trial court, and we are disposed to uphold the ruling. Whitaker v. Hamilton, 126 N. C., 465, 35 S. E., 815.

No error.