APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



Q57 



of the first instrument. It was 

 valid J and had so continued for 

 many years j but tlie question 

 was, wliether it was cancelled. 

 The learned Judge then alluded 

 to the preparation and purport of 

 the second instrument, and ob- 

 served that the deceased had in 

 law abandoned that instrument 

 by never executing it, and it was 

 therefore wholly inoi)erati\e. lie 

 then proceeded to notice the evi- 

 dence as to the deceased's regard 

 for his children, his beha\ iour to 

 them, his testamentary declara- 

 tion in their favour down to the 

 time of his death, and the fact of 

 his having recognized 3Iessrs. 

 Birt and Glcncroft as his execu- 

 tors just before that event, from 

 which, the learned Judge obsajv- 

 ed, it was evident that the de- 

 ceased had died thinking he had 

 left the bulk of his property to his 

 sons ; but tlien there was written 

 on the back of the perfect instru- 

 ment the words " cancelled, and 

 another made out." Could it be 

 contended that this was an abso- 

 lute revocation? If not, the cir- 

 cvunstanccs mentioned sliould re- 

 but it. It was a uiere memoran- 

 dum, not signed or dated ; and 

 the learned Judge expressed his 

 opinion that it had been made 

 merely to remind the deceased 

 himself to cancel the instrument 

 when the now one should be com- 

 pleted, and w as entirely dependent 

 on the new act to be done. It 

 was not true in point of fact, for 

 the will was not cancelled, but 

 left perfect, and not defaced. In 

 cases somewhat analogous, wht;rc 

 a mere flr.ift or inception of a will 

 is endorsed by the testator as " my 

 will,' the (>)urt only considers 

 such an imlorbcnicut as u loose 



memorandum, and not as supply- 

 ing the defect of execution, or 

 otherwise giving effect to the pa- 

 per 3 so in the present case the 

 indorsement was a mere memo- 

 randum, and did not of itself 

 prove that it had been done animo 

 revoc'indi. Even the tearing off 

 of a seal was not an absolute re- 

 vocation, but open to explanation ; 

 and the same doctrine applied to 

 this case. The deceased had no 

 intention to die intestate, and it 

 was quite clear that this indorse- 

 ment was not a revocation until 

 the accompanying act in the new 

 will should be completed. It was 

 highly probable, from the paper 

 itself, and the circurastancea in 

 evidence, that the indorsement 

 was a mere thoughtless memo- 

 randum, without the intention of 

 doing any independent act to in- 

 validate the instrument, and that 

 the deceased was not aware that 

 it could by possibility have any 

 such effect. Under these circum- 

 stances the learned Judge said, 

 that he was satisfied, that by pro- 

 nouncing for the paper No. 1, he 

 was carrjmg into effect the inten- 

 tion of the deceased, and decree- 

 ing probate of the paper which he 

 considered to be his operative 

 will. Probate of No. 1 was de- 

 creed accordingly, and the costs 

 of the next of kin were, under 

 these circumstances, directed to 

 be paid out of the estate. 



Trial, Bigamy. Old Bailey, Feb. 

 17. — George Harrower was indict- 

 ed, for that he, having married 

 one Mary Usher at Bombay, in 

 the East Indies, on the 5th of 

 February, 1794, did feloniously 

 intermarry with one Susannah 

 Anne Giblelt, spinster, of the 



S parish 



