The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-15 00:00:00

COLLINS ♦. WI LSON.-JIJDOM INT.

The question in this case arose upon the construction of a testamentary
paper of the late Mr. James Collins, of Stamford-hill, dated the 9th of
December, 1831, and called " the Fourth Codicil" to his Will, dated
the '27th of July, 1826 It was alleged by the plaintiff's and some of
the defendants that this paper passed the whole of the testator's pro.
perty, except such part as by the same paper he had shown an inten-
tion to dispose of according to former testamentary papers. The ottnr
defendants contended that the paper in question was sustained in con.
nection with other papers, and that in effect it only disposed of that
which had not been specifically or particularly given by the other
papers ; and the question was, whether by the words " all the rest
residue and remainder of any real and personal estate," which the
testator had made use of in this codicil be meant, all that he had not
specifically or particular!), disposed of by this codicil and former testa-
mentary paper taken together. The testator having seven children,
and being entitled to a large property, consisting of freehold, copy hold,
and household estates, money in the Funds, Bank and East India Stook,
shares in the stock of different Companies, and other
.personal estates,
by his will dated the 27th July, 1826, gave se►eral legacies to friends.
servants, and clerks, and various Charities, and he made gifts in favour
of all his children.

Lord LANQOALP, in giving Judgment this morning, said, that as a
general rule a codicil prinza facie confirmed so much of the will as It did
not revoke, and that the will and codicil being taken together, effect
was to be given to both. Where there were several instruments, all
must be made consistent as far as possible; and where there was a ge-
neral residuary clause, it must be applied to the, property according to
the intention to be collected from all the instruments taken together,
that was not particularly or specifically disposed of. No doubt great
difficulty arose in many cases of arriving at the true intention of the tes-
tator, and the present was as difficult a case as it had been his Lord-
ship's fortune to meet with; but after reading the instruments
carefully several times, he did not think the testator intended
the fourth codicil should operate as a substitution for all the bene-
ficial interests given by former instruments, and not confirmed by the
same codicil, but that the residuary clause in the fourth codicil operated
only on so much of the testator's real and personal estate, as was not
specifically or particularly disposed of by the will, and all the other Pa-
pers taken together. His Lordship, therefore, declared, that according
to the true construction of the fourth codicil, the residuary bequest of
the personal estate contained in the will, and the residuary devise of the
personal estate contained In the third codicil, and not the specific o
particular devised in the will and codicil, were revoked.

BARAN V. BRANDON.
This case, which was part.heard on Saturday, came before the Court
for the purpose of having a construction put on a very obscure will,
made by a gentleman of the name of Basso, a resident of Jamaica.
The case was not concluded wheu we left.