APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



"■217 



of the other witnesses, and was of 

 opinion that, looking to the evi- 

 dence, there was in support of the 

 deceased's capacit}-, tiie respecta- 

 bility of Dr. Hall's character, and 

 the improbability that he should 

 lend himself, without having the 

 least interest in the transaction, to 

 the fabrication of a will, and the 

 imposing it upon a man in a de- 

 ranged state of mind, and after- 

 wards busy himself in getting a 

 more complete one prepared by 

 an attorney, contrary to Carnsew's 

 suggestion of fraud. Looking 

 also to the fairness of the execu- 

 tion of the will, and the procure- 

 ment of the witnesses by the exe- 

 cutor, indiscriminately, and with- 

 out any instructions to then), con- 

 trary to Carnsew's suggestion of 

 subornation ; observing, too, the 

 evidence of the deceased's capa- 

 city, his silence Ht the times when 

 he is described by Carnsew as 

 raving, cursing, and swearing, and 

 his recognition of the will and its 

 contents, by saying to one witness, 

 that his executor would pay her 

 for her trouble in attending upon 

 him ; and to another, (his ne|)hew), 

 by calling him to his bedside, and 

 telling him what he had left him, 

 in direct contradiction to Carn- 

 sew's assertion, that the will was 

 never read over to him (the de- 

 ceased), nor did he know the con- 

 tents of it ; and all this, confirmed 

 by the conduct of the widow, 

 proved to have been in the house 

 during the whole transaction, 

 though Carnsew asserted she was 

 not, and acquiescing till her death 

 in the non-impeachment of the 

 will. Looking to this mass of evi- 

 dence, the Court could come to no 

 other conclusion than that Carn- 

 sew was a most corrupt and per- 



jured witness, and his act must 

 tiierefore be taken in opposition 

 to his evidence. The will then 

 appciired the act of a capable tes- 

 tator, and the law therefore pre- 

 sumed his knowledge of its con- 

 tents. This presumption was, 

 however, strong!}' augmented by 

 the widow's acquiescence, and the 

 proof of the testator's strong re- 

 gard for his brother and nephew, 

 the persons principally benefitted. 

 It was a very common notion 

 amonj.^st persons not conversant in 

 law, that an executor takes every 

 thing not given by the will, after 

 payment of debts. Dr. Hall may 

 have entertained this idea (not 

 conceiving the bequest of an es- 

 tate for 4 years only to his brother 

 to be repugnant to the deceased's 

 intention of giving him the re- 

 sidue), until undeceived by Mr. 

 Hext, and the Court was bound 

 to presume, that Mr. Hext would 

 not have inserted the residuary 

 clause, unless he had previously 

 ascertained from Dr. Hall that it 

 was consonant to the deceased's 

 instructions to him. Under all 

 the circumstances, therefore, the 

 Court was satisfied, as well from 

 the presumption of law, as from 

 the facts of the case, both being 

 concurrent, that the paper in ques- 

 tion was sufficiently proved to con- 

 tain the will of the deceased, and 

 the same was pronounced for ac- 

 cord! nglj', and the probate thereof 

 confirmed to the executor in re- 

 versal of the decision of the Court 

 below ; buti n consideration of the 

 next of kin hjwvng only supported 

 that decision in this court, and of 

 its appearing that Carnsew had 

 been induced to perjure himself 

 so grossly, not at her instigation, 

 but merely from motives of revenge 



