HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0354 and id is 1 raw text is: relation ; the will is imperfect for want of execution, but it was [486] once his intention;
no departure from it; Ross has not pleaded any thing to impeach the will; as to the
marriage, no imputation on her but with respect to an affair with one man. She never
cohabited with reputation with James Smith; after deceased's marriage he kept another
servant. Pray costs.
Dr. Harris, same side. She is not proved to be a woman of bad character. Swinb.
part 4, ch. 18. The stile of the will shews it is genuine. Pray costs.
Dr. Hay for Ross. Not necessary for next of kin to prove affection ; the Court
has in no case given costs unless the next of kin were privy to the will; they must
shew a permanency of intention where the paper is imperfect for want of execution.
Dr. Smalbroke, same side. Prerogative, Barnesley against Powell, a long will
forged, therefore proof of handwriting alone is not sufficient proof to establish a will.
Johnson is an interested witness. Prerogative, Crellins against Jones, a witness rejected
because she had a legacy in a will of an old gown, which she had neither received nor
renounced.
Judgment-Sir George Lee. I was of opinion the will was sufficiently proved, for it
was fully proved to be all written and signed by the testator; and as it was complete
as to the disposition, and only contained personal estate, the law did not require
execution before witnesses; [487] and as to the marriage, it was fully proved by two
witnesses, who were present, and by the mutual ownings of both the parties. I
therefore pronounced for the will and the marriage, and decreed administration cum
testamento to Elizabeth Cunningham, as widow of the deceased and universal legatee
in his will, but did not give costs.
COOK against COWPER. Prerogative Court, Michaelmas Term, December 3rd, 1757.-
Where a party refuses to admit a proxy or to appear, the Court will proceed in
the cause as if the party had appeared and raised no opposition.
[See p. 388, ante, and p. 504, post.]
The wife, Susanna Cook, would not give a proxy nor appear. I therefore admitted
a proxy from her husband alone; and he having confessed the allegation, inventory,
and account modo et formA, as exhibited by Mrs. Cowper, the administratrix, I decreed
distribution accordingly to the husband without taking notice of the wife.
MILL, Executrix of Blandford against BLANDFORD. Prerogative Court, By-Day after
Michaelmas Term, December 10th, 1757.-A will established upon adequate proof
of instructions and capacity.
Thomas Blandford made his will dated 11th August, 1755; appointed his wife
Elizabeth Blandford, executrix, and residuary legatee, and gave his mother, Mary
Blandford, one hundred pounds, but that legacy is struck out, and made Mr. Toke
and Mr. James Mill, his brother in law, trustees; deceased being ill, went for air to
said Mr. Mill's house at Salisbury, and there on [488] 25th of August, 1755, the day
he died, he made another will, appointed Toke and Mill executors in trust, and gave
them ten pounds each, then appointed his wife sole executrix and residuary legatee,
and gave therein a legacy of seventy pounds to his mother; she survived the testator,
made her will, and appointed Beata Mill sole executrix. Mill cited Elizabeth Blandford,
deceased's widow, to take probate of the last will, dated 25th August, 1755. She
appeared, and upon an affidavit of scripts and scrolls brought in both wills, and
declared she was ready to take probate of the will dated 11th August, 1755, but
opposed the last will dated 25th August, 1755. Beata Mill, as executrix of Mary
Blandford, the mother of deceased and a legatee in his will, propounded the will of
25th August, 1755; the widow did not propound the first will or give in any plea in
opposition to the last, but cross-examined Mill's witnesses.
Witnesses for Mill.
1. Robert Stillingfleet, N. P. Deponent knew deceased by sight for twenty years;
on or about 25th August, 1755, deponent being sent for, went to deceased at the house
of James Mill, his brother in law, in Salisbury, and then deceased himself gave deponent
verbal instructions for making his will; deponent wrote them down and carried them
home, and directly wrote the will dated 25th August, 1755, and carried it to deceased,
and read it twice over to him, and asked him if he was satisfied with it; he answered
he was well satisfied with it, and should not have been easy; if he had not done it;
deceased then duly executed it in presence of deponent and James Hord; [489]
deceased was then very weak, but of sound mind.
414
COOK V. COWPER
2 LEE, 486,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0354&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)