APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



279 



those specimens which he was in 

 the habit of making, to shew that 

 he could exceed him (King) in 

 brevity ; and in verification of this 

 opinion, he exhibited his own will, 

 which had given rise to the other. 

 The rest of the evidence went 

 principally to prove the deceased's 

 regard for his wife, and that he 

 lived very happily with her. 



Sir John Nicholl recapitulated 

 the evidence, but principally that 

 of Mr. King ; and observed, that 

 if that was to be received, the will 

 must be pronounced against, as 

 wanting the great requisite, — the 

 animus testandi. He was of opi- 

 nion, that the evidence must be 

 received, because it was that of a 

 witness made so by the testator 

 himself; a witness, who was 

 bound to come forward, even at 

 the instance of the parties opposing 

 the will, that they might have the 

 benefit of his cross-examination. 

 The evidence, however, of such a 

 witness, if in derogation of his own 

 act, was to be listened to with 

 extreme caution; and the ques- 

 tion therefore was, whether Mr. 

 King was entitled to belief. He 

 appeared to be a friend of the 

 deceased's : the transaction de- 

 scribed by him, though whimsical, 

 was nevertheless probable ; and 

 the will was made as a specimen 

 of brevity in imitation of King's ; 

 the disposing parts of both were 

 to the same effect, and so were the 

 admonitory parts ; and it was 

 therefore evident that the one was 

 a strong imitation of the other, but 

 in fewer words. The deceased 

 did not intend that it should be 

 witnessed by King, and gave no 

 directions for its preservation. It 

 was a strong circumstance, too, 

 that the will made no alteration 



in the manner in which the law 

 would have disposed "of the de- 

 ceased's property, had he died at 

 that time; and it was therefore 

 not likely to have been written 

 animo testandi, but as a specimen 

 of brevity only. He afterwards 

 married, and lived very happily 

 with his wife ; and his declara- 

 tions during his dlness rather 

 showed his attention to die intes- 

 tate, as he merely expressed his 

 intention of making his will when 

 he should get better, to satisfy 

 those who desired it of him. 

 During all this, no mention was 

 made of the paper in question : it 

 appeared to have been dismissed 

 from his mind ever since the oc- 

 casion that gave rise to it, and the 

 Court could not but think, that 

 when handed by deceased to 

 King, it was not intended by him 

 to operate after his death ; and 

 therefore, though exei^'ising every 

 possible caution as to the evidence 

 of a witness in derogation of his 

 own act, it was bound to pro- 

 nounce against the will ; which 

 was done accordingly, and letters 

 of administration decreed to the 

 widow. 



Prerogative Court, Doctors' 

 Commons. — Fox against Evans and 

 Evans. — This was a proceeding re- 

 lative to the validity of the will of 

 Francis Evans, Esq. late of Har- 

 row-villa, Middlesex, deceased, 

 which was propounded on the 

 part of Miss Sarah Fox, spinster, 

 one of the executors, and opposed 

 by Mrs. Alicia Evans, and Francis 

 Evans, Esq. the widow and son of 

 the deceased. 



It appeared that Mr. Evans was 

 a gentleman of very respectable 

 connections in Ireland, and had in 



