The sole question is whether the omission to provide for a child in a will was intentional, and not occasioned by mistake. Walton v. Roberts, 141 Me. 112, 114, 39 A. 2d 655 (1944); Ingraham, Appellant, 118 Me. 67, 69, 105 A. 812 (1919). The statute raises a presumption that the omission was not intentional.

The law presumes that the omission to provide for a child in a will is the result of forgetfulness, infirmity or misapprehension, and not by design. Walton, et al. v. Roberts, 141 Me. 112. This presumption, however, is rebuttable. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the omission as being intentional. In the case of Ingraham, Appellant, 118 Me. 67, the court, on page 70, said:

VI. Cases from other courts, construing foreign "pretermission statutes", support our conclusion that testatrix exercised her privilege to disinherit her children as a class by devising all her property to her husband. Bancroft v. Ives, 3 Gray (Mass.) 367; Buckely v. Gerard, 123 Mass. 8; Coulam v. Doull, 133 U.S. 216, 33 L.Ed. 596, 10 S.Ct. 253; Fleming v. Phoenix Trust Co., 162 Tenn. 511, 39 S.W.2d 277; Hedlund v. Miner, 395 Ill. 217, 65 N.E.2d 862, 170 A.L.R. 1306; Leonard v. Enochs, 92 Ky. 186, 17 S.W. 437; Smith v. Smith, 62 R.I. 52, 2 A.2d 896; Walton v. Roberts, 141 Me. 122, 39 A.2d 655; 57 Am. Jur. 400. Albert S. Gardner, Yazoo City, for appellee.