584 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



Mr. Wright died on the 13th of 

 February, 1814, having on the 5th 

 of August, 1800, made his will, 

 appointing Lady Wilson and the 

 Honourable Charles Abbott, exe- 

 cutors, and bequeathing to the 

 former the residue of his property, 

 after payment of his debts, and 

 some specific legacies. He had 

 also subsequently made several 

 codicils to this will, and the alle- 

 gation now oftered pleaded that 

 the deceased, on the 11th of Fe- 

 bruary, two days only before his 

 death, being veiy ill, addressed 

 himself to two or three persons 

 who were with him, and declared 

 his intention to give one thousand 

 pounds out of the money he had 

 invested in the Bank to a friend of 

 his. The words used by him for 

 this purpose were reduced into 

 writing on the 15th of March, 

 after his death, and attested by the 

 persons in whose presence they 

 were uttered. 



The admission of this allegation 

 to proof was opposed on the 

 ground, that the statute 29 Car. 2, 

 commonly called the statute of 

 frauds, required that no written 

 will should be revoked or altered 

 by a subsequent nuncupative one, 

 unless the same be in the lifetime 

 of the testator reduced into writ- 

 ing and approved by him, and 

 proved to have been so by three 

 admissible witnesses ; and that no 

 nuncupative will should be prov- 

 ed by witnesses afier six months 

 from the making, unless reduced 

 into writing within six days, nor 

 should it be proved till fourteen 

 days after the testator's death, nov 

 until the relations should have 

 been cited to oppose the same if 

 they thought proper. From the 

 facts, however, stated in this alle- 



gation, it appeared that the money 

 in the Bank included both gene- 

 rally and specifically in the resi- 

 duary clause of the regularly exe- 

 cuted will, was the fund out of 

 which the nuncupative legacy was 

 to be paid. This therefore was 

 an alteration by the nuncupative 

 codicil of the disposition of the 

 property made by that will with- 

 in the meaning of the act, and as 

 the provisions of that act requir- 

 ing the words of nuncupation to 

 be reduced into writing within six 

 days had not been complied with, 

 the nuncupative codicil was void, 

 and the allegation pleading it in- 

 admissible. 



It was contended, on the other 

 hand, that the allegation was ad- 

 missible, because the court was 

 not justified in shutting out the 

 parties, by a rejection of it, from 

 an investigation of the case by 

 which it might appear that the re- 

 quisites of the act had been com- 

 plied with, as in the case of Brown 

 and Manby in 1770. 



Sir John Nicholl recapitulated 

 the facts of the case, and observ- 

 ed, it was clear that the money in 

 the Bank was given both gene- 

 rally and specifically by the resi- 

 duarj- clause of the will, and it 

 was equally so that the effect of 

 the nuncupative codicil would be 

 to alter this bequest. The act, on 

 account of its general objects, was 

 to be strictly construed and en- 

 forced to its fullest extent. It 

 was, therefore, imperative upon 

 the Court in this case, and left it 

 no discretion. The Court would 

 have wished to have had the au- 

 thority of some case to justify a 

 further investigation of the pre- 

 sent one by sending the allega- 

 tion to proof, but none such had 



