ANNUAL 
randa (one of which was taken 
out of thedeceased’s pocket-book) 
expressive of an intention of mak- 
ing similar alterations in the will. 
The allegation now offered in 
support of those papers pleaded 
the contents of the will as far as 
regarded the exclusion of the eld- 
est son, and the bequest of an an- 
nuity of 92/. with certain parts of 
the furniture to the daughter dur- 
ing life, the deceased’s signature 
to the first codicil, and hand writing 
of the whole of the second, and 
his having kept them in his desk 
at the Excise office, until within a 
short time of his death, when he 
brought the will and first codicil 
home, and they were afterwards 
found in a chest of drawers, sealed 
up in an envelope, and the second 
codicil loose in his desk. It also 
pleaded several parole declarations 
of the testator to the effect of the 
alterations in favour of his daugh- 
ter, and his general capacity until 
his death, which was occasioned 
by his being run over by acarriage 
on the 24th of November, 1814. 
The admission of this allegation 
was opposed on the ground that 
the circumstances detailed in it 
were not sufficient to rebut the 
presumption of Jaw arising from 
the appearance and import of the 
papers themselves, that they were 
merely memoranda and sketches 
of alterations to be subsequently 
made in his will, and never in- 
tended by the deceased to operate 
in their present imperfect form. 
Sir John Nicholl obsexved, that 
262 
the general principles upon which: 
unexecuted papers brought before 
the court were to be considered, 
were too well known to require 
detail. It was sufficient to say, 
that the presumption of law was 
REGISTER, 
1815. 
always against them, and that it 
must be shewn, in the present 
case, that the deceased had made 
up his mind to the revocation of 
the will which they purported to 
revoke. He then described the 
nature and purport of the papers, 
and of the allegation in support of 
them, which, he observed, stated 
but little in explanation of them ; 
and it was, therefore, evident, that 
the case must depend principally 
upon the appearance and nature 
of the papers themselves. The 
will was a very formal one, and 
had all the appearance of having 
been drawn up by some professed 
man. The deceased must, there- 
fore, have been well aware of the 
modes in which a testamentary 
disposition should be drawn. The 
first codicil, being of no legal ef- 
fect, would be sufficiently disposed 
of under the general rule of law, 
which presumes every unfinished 
paper not to be intended to ope- 
rate. The second codicil was a 
mere draft or sketch of one to be 
prepared, ifsubsequently approved 
of; and the third, written in pen- 
cil on the back of the first, was 
evidently a mere memorandum. 
He inclined therefore to the view 
of them taken by the counsel in 
objection, and considering them 
as wholly inoperative, established 
the will, but pronounced against 
the codicils, and rejected the al- 
legation. 
Higgin and Harrison, v. Har- 
rison.—This was asimilar question’ 
upon the validity ofatestamentary 
paper, pleaded as a codicil to the 
will of William Parke, Esq. for- 
merly of the Hermitage-house, 
Jamaica, but late of Gower-street, 
Bedford-square. 
