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/ssactsengr0355 and id is 1 raw text is: SEROCOLD V. HEMMING
2. Int. Deceased died the same day the will was executed; deponent heard the
bell toll for him about four or five hours after. 3. Int. Deceased entirely gave
the instructions for the will, and he gave them to respondent between nine and
eleven in the morning. 5. Int. The will was executed between two and four in
the afternoon. 6. 1nt. Does not remember that any one but James Mill was present
at reading the will: while respondent was reading it deceased said, Brother, raise
me a little higher, speaking to Mill. 7. Int. When the will was executed, deceased
was very weak and was assisted in writing his name by Mill, who respondent believes
held his hand. 8. Int. Believes Mr. Toke was in the house at the time the will was
executed, but deceased said he would not have him for a witness.
2. James Hord, victualler. Deponent knew deceased by sight; on 25th August,
1755, as deponent believes the day was, James Mill called deponent to his house and
carried deponent to a bed chamber, where deceased was sitting up in his bed, and
Robert Stillingfleet was then finishing the will; deceased asked Mill who deponent
was; Mill told him deponent was a neighbour who was come to witness the will;
Stillingfleet directed him, and deceased did execute it; deponent cannot say whether
deceased was or was not in his senses as he was very near death; deponent signed
the will as a witness.
5. Int. It was executed in the afternoon. 7. Int. Deceased was in a weak
state, but was able to sit up and write his name without assistance; respondent heard
he died soon after.
[490] Judgment-Sir George Lee. I was of opinion that the deceased's capacity,
his giving instructions himself for his will, his approbation and execution of it,
were sufficiently proved by these witnesses, and the more especially as Robert
Stillingfleet was a sworn notary; and therefore I pronounced for the will dated
25th August, 1755, and decreed probate to the widow and executrix Elizabeth
Blandford.
SEROCOLD AND HUNTER against HEAMING. Prerogative Court, 2nd Session, Hilary
Term, January 31st, 1758.-A codicil may revive a first will by a direct reference
to the instrument, and revoke by implication the will in existence of the latest
date.-It is not the act of revival that revokes the last will, but the first will
after it is revived.-Wills made in the West Indies are not within the statute of
frauds.
[Referred to, In re Smith; Bilke v. Roper, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 637.]
Dr. Simpson for Serocold and Hunter. Richard Heming, Esq., made his will in
London, dated 23d January, 1753, attested by three witnesses, and appointed Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Serocold, Mr. Samuel Hemming his brother, Mr. Whitehorn, Mr. Tucker,
Mr. Clark, and Mr. Samuel Hemming his eldest son, executors. On the 7th March,
1753, deceased made another will at Jamaica, which he left behind him there when
he rbturned to England, where he died; the last will was attested by five witnesses,
and therein he appointed Mr. Rose Fuller a new executor, and left out Mr. Whitehorn
and his brother Samuel Hemming, but the rest of the executors were the same as in
the first will. By the will of 23d January, 1753, deceased charged all his debts,
legacies and annuities upon his real and personal estate, gave to his two younger
sons four thousand pounds sterling each charged upon his real and personal estate,
and to be paid [491] them at their ages of twenty-one years, and added, It is my
will and mind that if they or either of them should die under age, his share shall
lapse to my estate for the benefit of my eldest son. This clause is omitted in the
last will; he gave legacies to his daughters, with clauses of lapse in like manner;
to Margaret Hawksworth five pounds a-year, which in the last will is made twenty
pounds a-year; all his plantations in Jamaica and his real estate in Britain or else-
where, and his personal estate, subject to his debts, legacies and annuities, to his
eldest son. In the last will he manumitted two of his slaves, and give them fifteen
pounds a-year each for life ; these were the only, or at least the most material varia-
tions, between the two wills. At the bottom of the first will (which he kept uncan-
celled), immediately under his name and seal affixed to the last sheet, he wrote with
his own hand thus:-
London, 16th October, 1755; I likewise give to Mrs. Lucretia Luxford twenty-
five pounds a-year for her life, and to my black servant, Peter Saville, ten pounds
415
2, LEE, 490.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0355&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)