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/ssactsengr0369 and id is 1 raw text is: IN IE DEWELL
in its power to enforce :ait, payment to the wife, but strongly recommended that the
husband should pay twenty-five shillings a-week to the wife during 1tC long vacation.
Dr. Haggard, on the part of the husband, stated that he was willing to allow a
guinea a-week, but the Court considered it too little, advised compliance with its
recommendation, and strongly intimated that in the event of non-compliance the
husband would have reason to repent it wheni the formal allotment of alimony,
pendente lite, came before the Court after the long vacation.
Nov. 16, 2nd Sess. Mich. Term.-The case came now' before the Court for the
formal allotment of alimony U)On the answer of the husband to the allegation of
faculties.
Dr. Deane and Dr. Twiss appeared for the wife.
Dr. Haggard and Dr. Robinson for the husband.
The Court decreed alimony at the rate of 801. per annum from the return of the
citation, deducting such sums as may have been paid to Mrs. Mitchell during the
intermediate time.
Proctor for the husband, Toller; for the wife, Jennings.
IN THE GOODS OF TnOMAS DEWELL, Deceased. Prerogative Court of Canterbury,
Nov. 5, 1853.-Interlineations were made in a will by the testator after
execution. He sent for the witnesses, pointed out the alterations, declared he
republished his will, and then acknowledged his original signature, but did not
re-sign. The witnesses placed their initials opposite to the alterations, and also
signed a memorandum at the foot of the will. Held, a sufficient execution of the
interlineations.
[S. C. 17 Jur. 1130.]
The deceased died in August last, leaving a will dated February 2, 1847, and a
codicil dated November 13, 1850. Both the will and codicil were in his own hand-
writing, and (104] duly executed. But subsequent to the execution of the will two
interlineations were made therein, opposite to which, in the margin, appeared the
initials of the subscribing witnesses, but not the initials nor signature of the testator.
At the end, however, of the will, and below the names of the subscribing witnesses,
was the following memorandum in the testator's handwriting: Republished and
declared by the testator, with the words, 'for her own use' interlined in the last line
of the first page, and the words, 'in the names of the same trustees,' interlined in the
eleventh line of the second page, in the presence of us who, in his presence, at his
request, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto subscribed our names as
witnesses, this first day of December, 1848. The names of the two subscribing
witnesses to the will, but not the name of the testator, appeared immediately below
this memorandum.
One of the witnesses was dead ; the other made an affidavit to the effect, that on
or about the date of this memorandum the testator sent for them, produced his will
to them, told them that he had made certain alterations, which he pointed out, and
that it was necessary for him to republish it; that he then acknowledged his original
signature, and they both subscribed their names to the memorandum, having pre-
viously placed their initials against the alterations, but the testator did not subscribe
his name.
Dr. Waddilove moved for probate with the alterations, and submitted that the
signature of the testator being already upon the will as altered, his acknowledgment
of it in the presence of the two witnesses, who subscribed their names, was a sufficient
compliance with the 21st sect. of the Wills Act, without a re-signing on the part of
the testator.
Sir John Dodson. I am inclined to take the same view of it. What is stated in
the affidavit respecting the transaction clearly proves the acknowledgment of the
signature, and the witnesses having put their initials to the alterations, as well as
their names to the memorandum, I think the party is entitled to probate of the will
as it now stands with the alterations. The proper course, perhaps, would have been
for the testator to have re-signed his name, as the witnesses did ; but I don't know
that the omission is fatal to the validity of these interlineations. I grant the motion.
Proctor, H. P. Clarke.
I SP. ECC. & AD. 104.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0369&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)