The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-26 00:00:00

MONDAY

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
cuuß c;i_:<^47 v

COOPER V. EARL PuWIS.

In ibis case, which had not concluded when our report
left,

The LORD CHANCELLOR affirmed the order of the
Court below, and stated that the principle to govern such
cases had been laid down by him in " Foss and Har-
bottle," and other decisions.
Appeal dismissed with costs.

VICE CHANCERY COURT, March 24.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
HAYWARD V. PIIRSSEY.
In this case the arguments were again adjourned, and
stand for Monday, after the bankrupt petitions.

PREROGATIVE COURT, March 24.
(Before Sir H. JENNER FUST.);
LEECH V. BATES.

The arguments in this case having been concluded
to-day,
Sir IT. J. Tun gave judgment.—Mr. Edmund Bates,
late of Kettering, died last year, after having executed a
will and two codicils, which latter were now disputed.
The two witnesses to these papers would not speak to
their having been duly executed. The first codicil was
attested by Thomas Messenger and his mother, but it
was said they were not present at the time when the de-
ceased executed it. On the second were Thomas Mes-
senger and John Bates. The latter witness said he at-
tested the instrument before it was signed by the de-
ceased. A further question was, which of the two codi-
cils was executed first. The Learned Judge referred to
the case of " Falls v. Jackson," where the will was at-
tested by the witnesses at different times, which was the
case in this instance. He could not depend upon the
want of memory on the part of the witnesses. Looking
at this infirmity, he could not decide against these in•
struments. He considered they were duly executed by
the deceased at the dates they bore, and would, there-
fore, grant probate to the will and codicils. The costs
to be paid out of the estate.

MATSON v. MAGRATH.

Sir H. JENNER FEW gave judgment in this case. The
deceased, a Lieutenant Melville Gore Matson, of the
59th Regiment, made a will on the 14th of March, 1833,
at which period he was taken seriously ill, when he be-
queathed a life interest in his property to his mother,
and after her death to a Miss Charlotte Butler, of Ennis-
killen, a lady whom ho was under an engagement to
marry, saying, " if he died he could wish to provide for
her," but recovering, he married the lady, and four chil-
dren were the result of that marriage, and who now ap-
peared before the Court, by their guardian, to dispute
this will, and call upon the Court to make some provi-
sion for them, the testator not having made any testa-
mentary disposition of his property since his marriage.
The question was, is the will revoked by this marriage?
He (the Learned Judge) then referred to and commented
on the case of Fox and Bastard, also Israel and Roden,
and others, in reference to the revocation of a will. At
the present moment, by the new Wills Act, a marriage
would revoke any will made previously, but this bore
date before that Act came into operation. He felt be
must decide for the revocation of the will, as there were
children by this marriage who must be provided for.
The law would not allow the widow to have any control
over it, though the will was no doubt made to provide
for her at the time the testator executed it. The will
was accordingly revoked. The costs to be paid out of
the estate.