according to Green. The proposition is one of first impression. And, as interesting as the argument is, to so construe section 692 as authorizing the court to conduct a preliminary bench hearing to assess capacity would not only lead to an absurd result but also would nullify section 643. For instance, one cannot reasonably deny that an ultimate fact in a proceeding such as that at bar involve s contention, if the applicant succeeded in proving the ultimate fact to the court and won the right to submit the same issue to a jury, then one can only wonder why submission to a jury would be needed to obtain a guardianship. This is so because, by applying the strue it in a manner harmonious with sections 692 and 693. See St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.1997) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, such a harmonious' result is
holding that the words and provisions of a statute must be construed in a harmonious way holding that a contract must be read as a whole in order to give a reasonable and harmonious meaning and effect to all of its provisions citation omitted holding that rule 6b cannot be construed to nullify the specific provisions of the statute holding that the terms of a forfeiture statute must be strictly construed and as a result the words of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statutes operation recognizing that statutes should be construed to avoid conflict and to form a harmonious whole