260 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1815. 
laugh, and soon afterwards burst 
into tears. Mrs. Greenough com- 
municated the circumstance to 
some other persons in the house, 
by whose advice a medical gentle- 
man in the neighbourhood was 
sent for, and they jointly interro- 
gated the deceased; but to all 
their questions, though opposite 
and contradictory, he answered 
by the same vacant affirmative ; 
and by the general tenor of his 
conduct completely convinced 
them of his incapacity. The 
pieces of the will were then sealed 
up in an envelope, and preserved 
in their exact mutilated state, 
until after the deceased’s death, 
which happened in the month of 
November, 1813. 
No evidence was adduced in 
‘contradiction to this, on the part 
of the next of kin, whose Coun- 
sel admitted the sufficiency of the 
proof to sustain the case of the 
supporters of the will. They con- 
tended, however, that the circum- 
Stances of the case were such as 
not only to justify, but absolutely 
to call for a solemn investigation 
before the Court to satisfy its ju- 
dicial conscience in giving opera- 
tion to an instrument presenting 
itself to notice under such, at least 
equivocal, circumstances. They 
trusted, therefore, that the next 
of kin would be protected in this 
necessary act of duty, by the 
Court's directing their costs to be 
paid out of the estate. 
Sir J. Nicholl recapitulated the 
circumstances of the case, and ob- 
served that the act of tearing was 
certainly,of itself, a revocation of 
the will, but then it was said to 
have been done by the deceased 
when ina state of mind uncon- 
scious of what he did. The law 
was clear, that the same degree 
of capacity was necessary to re~ 
voke as to make a will, and the 
question in the present case was 
therefore reduced to -one fact, 
whether the deceased was or was 
not at the time in the state of 
mind that had been described.— 
He then alluded to the evidence 
of four of the witnesses upon this 
point, and observed that they con- 
cluded with stating their full con- 
viction of the deceased’s incapa- 
city; butthey stated thefacis upon 
which they came to that conclu- 
sion, and upon the examination 
of those facts, the Court could not 
but think that they had come to 
it rightly. This impression was 
confirmed by the opposing parties 
having given no plea to resist the 
effect of this evidence, and by the 
evidence of the same witnesses 
upon their cross-examination.—. 
The will itself contained expres- 
sions of the deceased’s regard for 
the person he had made his resi- 
duary legatee, for her kindness 
and attentions to his deceased sis- 
ter. These attentions, it appear- 
ed, were continued to himself 
down to the very time of his 
death, and produced, as their na- - 
tural “consequences, the regard 
which he had often expressed for 
her. The result of the evidence 
was, therefore, such as not only 
to justify, but to make it the duty 
of Counsel to take the course they 
had, in admitting its sufficiency 
for the establishment of the will, 
by repelling the presumption of 
its having been torn animo can- 
cellandi. An application was, how- 
ever, made for costs, and made 
certainlyinveryconciliatory terms. 
