APPENDIX TO 
the rest of my will to be put in 
execution, and considered as my 
last will and testament.” 
It was contended on the one 
hand, that the construction to be 
put upon the second codicil was, 
that the deceased did not mean 
that it should revoke the appoint- 
ment of Mrs. Sherard as an ex- 
ecutor ; that had he so intended, 
he would hay: nadethe revocation 
in the same strong terms as those 
by which he had in the Ist codicil 
revoked the appointment of one of 
his brothers, and not in words of 
a remote and doubtful implica- 
tion; and that by confirming 
‘© the rest of his will, he had con- 
firmed the appointment of Mrs. 
Sherard, that appointment form- 
ing part of the rest of his will.” 
On the otherhand it was argued, 
that when two testamentary pa- 
pers contradict each other, it was 
held as a rule of law in courts of 
construction, that the latter should 
operate ; that the latter paper, or 
second codicil in this case, being 
by implication contradictory to 
the former as to the appointment 
of executors, must operate singly 
in that respect, and as making no 
mention of Mrs. Sherard, pro- 
bate must be granted without 
her. 
Sir John Nicholl observed, that 
the question was, whether the ap- 
pointment of Mrs. Sherard was 
revoked. The appointment was 
made by a very formal instru- 
ment, and its revocation must 
therefore be in express terms, or 
by necessary implication. It was 
evidently not expressly revoked ; 
and the question therefore was, 
whether it was so by necessary 
implication, which, he was of 
opinion, it was not. The direc- 
CHRONICLE. 267 
tion in the second codicil, that the 
testator’s brother, George, should 
remain an executor, and Sir Si- 
mon Haughton Clarke be joined 
with him only, did not by the 
word “only” necessarily shew a 
revocation. In interpretation, the 
Court must hesitate in giving a 
positive meaning to every word: 
and that this had no such positive 
meaning was to be inferred from 
what followed—the express revo- 
cation of the appointment of the 
two brothers without revoking 
that of the wife. By confirming 
the rest of his will, the deceased 
had also confirmed his wife’s ap- 
pointment. There were three ex- 
ecutors throughout, the deceased 
always contemplating a joint 
appointment. There appearing, 
then, no revocation either in ex- 
press terms or by necessary im- 
plication, the court directed Mrs. 
Sherard to be joined in the pro- 
bate with the other executors. 
Henshaw and Hadfield v. Atkin- 
sonand Atkinson.—For many days 
this very important cause had 
been under discussion before a 
Commission of adjuncts, com- 
posed of the following learned 
judges:—The Hon. Mr. Baron 
Wood, the Hon. Mr. Justice Bai- 
ley, the Hon. Mr. Justice Dallas, 
the Hon. Mr. Baron Richards, 
Dr. Burnaby, Dr. Daubeny, Dr. 
Phillimore, and Dr. Gostling. It 
was a question as to the validity 
of the will and codicils of the late 
Mr. Henshaw, of Oidham, in 
Lancashire, who died worth near 
150,000/. 
The will bore date in Novem- 
ber, 1807; the two first codicils 
in January, 1808; the third in 
May following, and the fourth in 
