and not in thedward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in the Phils.

Also, the
only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?
The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?
The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.
4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in and not in thedward Hix domiciled in
West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
preld then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.
4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the
late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in