« AnteriorContinuar »
to certain Wills
effect to any disposition or direction inserted after the Stat. 15 Vict. signature shall be made.”
Sect. 2. “ The provisions of this Act shall extend and be Act to extend applied to every Will already made, where administration already made. or probate has not already been granted or ordered by a Court of competent jurisdiction in consequence of the defective execution of such Will, or where the property, not being within the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, has not been possessed or enjoyed by some person or persons claiming to be entitled thereto in consequence of the defective execution of such Will, or the right thereto shall not have been decided to be in some other person or persons than the persons claiming under the Will, by a Court of competent jurisdiction, in consequence of the defective execution of such Will.” Sect. 3. “The word “Will'shall, in the construction Interpretation
of “Will." of this Act, be interpreted in like manner as the same is directed to be interpreted under the provisions in this behalf contained in the said Act of the first year of the reign of her Majesty Queen Victoria."
Sect. 4. “This Act may be cited as “The Wills Act Short title of Amendment Act 1852.' It should be observed that there is no provision in either Blank spaces in
the body of a of these Acts that the Will shall be written continuously. Will are unob
. Therefore it has been held that if a Will is otherwise duly jectionable. executed, it is no objection that it contains blank spaces in the body of it (d).
The stat. 1 Vict. enacts, that the Will may be signed What is a suf
Curt. 421. In the goods of Davies, 3 Curt. 748. Keating v. Brooks, 4 Notes of Cas. 253, 260. In the goods of Jones, 4 Notes of Cas. 532. S. C. 1 Robert. 424. In the goods of Cotton, 6 Notes of Cas, 307. S. C. 1 Robert. 638. Topham «. Topham, 2 Robert. 189. S. C. 7 Notes of Cas. 272. In re Standley, 7 Notes of Cas, 69, S. C. 1
Robert. 755. In the goods of
(d) Corneby v. Gibbons, 6 Notes
[Pt. 1. Bk.
ficient signing either by the testator, " or some other person in his presence
In the Prerogative Court, In the goods of Bailey (e), a
be made by a person who is one of the two subscribed whether the witnesses to the Will. The deceased died on the 30th of signature for the testator
November 1838: On the 8th of that month, he executed
witnesses, at the foot or end, by the deceased's direction,
A contrary view of this point has been taken in an able
However, in a late case (g), Sir H. Jenner adhered to the opinion he expressed “In the goods of Bailey," observing, that the witness in such a case attests the direction of the
testator, and that direction amounts to an acknowledgment. Whether the
A further question has arisen, as to whether, if the person signing party signing for the testator signs his own name, and should sign his not that of the testator, such signature is sufficient. In that of the case upon motion in the Prerogative Court (h), the testator testator.
died on June 4th, 1838: Being very ill, the vicar of the
own name or
not in the testator's name, but his own; the attestation
acknowledge signature to the attesting witnesses, it has been considered ment by the sufficient, primâ facie, without proving that the signature is signature in his handwriting, or that it was made "by some other suffices, with
out showing person in his presence and by his direction " ().
who wrote it. It is not necessary that all the sheets or papers of which Signature
where the Will a Will consists should be signed by the testator; or that consists of they should all be connected together: It is enough if they several sheets. were in the same room where the execution took place; and it must be presumed, primâ facie, that they were so (k).
testator of a
Of the Attestation of Wills and Codicils of personal estate.
It is proposed to consider this subject, with reference to Wills and codicils made before January 1st, 1838, and to which consequently the new Statute of Wills does not extend ; 2ndly, with reference to Wills and codicils made (or re-executed and republished) (1) on or after that date, and consequently within the operation of that statute.
(i) Gaze v. Gaze, 3 Curt. 456, per Sir H. Jenner Fust.
(k) Gregory v. The Queen's
Proctor, 4 Notes of Cas. 620, 639.
(1) See ante, p. 59, note (f).
1. As to Wills made before
First, as to Wills and codicils made before January 1st,
witness of their publication (m): custody is a sufficient
Judge, if they be published in the presence of witnesses (o).
mere Testament (t).
meant to execute it in the presence of witnesses, and that it against the
was incomplete in his apprehension of it, till that operation
(m) See Allan v. Hill, Gilb. Rep. (r) Swinb. Pt. 1, s. 3, pl. 13.
(n) Miller v. Brown, 2 Hagg. 211. (t) Brett v. Brett, 3 Add. 224.
Mathews v. Warner, 4 Ves. 186. (p) 1 Roberts. on Wills, 183. 5 Ves. 23. Walker v. Walker, 1
(9) Bracton, lib. 2, f. 61. Fleta, Meriv. 503; and see the note of
the learned reporter, in 1 Add.
not only of personal, but also of real property (x). It is true, that in Cobbold v. Baas (y), the Court of Delegates was of opinion, that a Will, both of real and personal property, with an attestation clause unexecuted by witnesses, was, reddendo singula singulis, a perfect disposition of personal estate, and, therefore, a good Will. But this decision may be considered as overruled by those of Matheus v. Warner (2) and Walker v. Walker (a). The presumption thus raised, however, is, generally but this pre
sumption is speaking, slight, and may be repelled by slight circum- slight, and may stances (6); yet slight as it is, it must be rebutted by some slight evidence.
be repelled by extrinsic evidence, either that the testator was prevented from finishing the instrument by the act of God, or that he intended it to operate in its present form (c). In the case of Buckle v. Buckle (d), the fact of the testamentary paper being found sealed up at the death of the testator, with an appearance that he did not intend to open it again, was held sufficient to rebut the presumption, by showing that it was his intention it should operate in its present form. So a recognition of it as a Will by the testator will suffice (e). By the different Acts of Parliament creating stock in the Devise of stock
in the public
funds. (t) See ante, p. 62. In the Court considered as raising an ingoods of Reeve, Prerog. H. T. 1842, finitely slighter presumption. 1 Notes of Cas. 310.
(c) Harris v. Bedford, 2 Phillim. (y) 4 Ves. 200 in notes.
178. Beaty v. Beaty, 1 Add. 158. (3) 4 Ves. 186. 5 Ves. 23. In the goods of Hurrill, 1 Hagg.
(a) 1 Meriy. 503. See the note 252. In the goods of Wenlock, to Beaty v. Beaty, 1 Add. 159, 160. 1 Hagg. 551. In the goods of See also Jekyll v. Jekyll, 1 Cas. Thomas, 1 Hagg. 596. In the temp. Lee, 419.
goods of Edmonds, 1 Hagg. 698. (6) Stewart v. Stewart, 2 Moore, Bragge v. Dyer, 3 Hagg. 207. P. C. C. 193. Bateman v. Pen- Pett v. Hake, 3 Curt. 612. nington, 3 Moore, P. C. C. 223. (d) 3 Phillim. 323. Harris v. Bedford, 2 Phillim. 178. (e) In the goods of Jerram, 1 Thomas v. Wall, 3 Phillim. 23. Hagg. 550. See also In the goods Buckle v. Buckle, 3 Phillim. 323. of Vanhagen, 1 Hagg. 478. In In the goods of Jerram, 1 Hagg. the goods of Sparrow, ibid. 479, 550. Doker v. Goff, 2 Add. 42. where there was
an attestation In the last case there was no re- clause in the plural number, and gular attestation clause, but only only one witness. the word "witnesses," which the