In this suit to set aside a will, appellant’s chief contention is that statements *20 of the testator to the effect that he had no relatives were substantial evidence of testamentary incapacity and that the District Court therefore erred in directing a verdict upholding the will. The testator actually had relatives. But in the light of all the testimony we are not prepared to say the court erred in deciding that a jury would not be justified in finding the testator incompetent. The court might well think it clear that he knew of the existence of his relatives and merely adopted a picturesque way of saying that he preferred to ignore them. In our opinion there is no merit in appellant’s other contentions.

Affirmed.