The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-05 00:00:00

SILVESTER ENEON, DECEASED.

The testator in this case made his will on a sheet of
paper, leaving room at the bottom for his signature, but
not for the attestation clause, and it was attested at the
top of the following page.
Dr. RosiNsorr, in applying for the probate. admitted
it was not strictly in accordance with the new Will Act,
but it was in the spirit of that Act; he, therefore, hoped
the Court would grant probate.
The Learned JUDGE observed this will was not in the
testator's own handwriting. He left 1701., and a father
and mother, who would be entitled to the property had
he died intestate. He (the Learned Judge) found some
difficulty on this question as to what construction might
be put upon it by !!t superior Court. He must, therefore,
reject the application, but declined giving any opinion
upon it.
LUCY GALLOWAY, DECEASED.
The testatrix resided at Killarney, and made a will in
$34, in her own handwriting. The date was in pencil,
but it was not executed. She bequeathed her property
to her sister Jane for life, and after her death to her
niece. The brother, who had no interest under the will,
asked for probate.
The Learned JUDGE said be must reject the motion,
but the parties might propound the paper.
REMOLDS V. ROBINSON.

Dr. ADDAMS asked for probate, to bo granted to the
grand aunt, the party who is to take the full interest
under the will of the deceased. There were two parties
before the Ccrurt, the estate having been in Chancery.
These parties consent to the probate, but asked for pay-
ment of their costs out of the estate.
The Learned JUDGE consented to grant administra-
tion to the grand aunt and guardian of the minor; but
he felt he was not in a situation to order payment of
costs out of the estate.
At the request of counsel this point was allowed to
stand over.

_ • ___
CEsCILIA ANN JARVIS, DECEASED.
This lady made a will and left the whole of her pro-
perty for the reduction of the national debt. The next
of kin applied to have administration granted to them,
the testatrix being of unsound mind at the lime she made
her will.
The Learned JUDGE wished to know if the Queen's
Proctor had consented.
The QUEEN'S PROCTOR said he did not. He knew the
deceased was insane, but he did not know who were the
next of kin.
The Learned JUDGE rejected the application.
ROBER FRANEY, DECEASED.
The testator died on the 4th January, 1849, making
will dated 10th July, 1841, appointing his brother, James
Ferney, the Rev. Mr. Sturmick, and the firm of Cocke-
rel! and Co., East India merchants, executors. Appli-
cation was made for probate to be granted to James
Ferney and the Rev. William Sturmick, the firm of
Cockerell and Co. being no longer in existence. An
affidavit made by Sir George Larpent was presented to
the Court to that effect.
Dr. DEAN contended the appointment, as the firm
was no longer in existence was void, the same as in the
event of a death, and quoted the case of the Bishop
of Tuam.
The Learned JUDGE wished to know if each partner
in the
tfiormrenwoouunlede,adomr itnhiey might appear and ask to bester? He thought the parties
admitted to prove the will at a future day. He felt no
difficulty could arise in obtaining a renunciation, which
would be Ithe better way, if they did not intend to act.
On principle he must reject the motion.
EVANS v. TYLER.
This was an application arising out of a difference
under the will of Jane Tyler, who appointed the Rev.
Thomas Evans and Thomas Tyler, her son, executors.
Mr. Evans applied for power to act as the sole executor,
as Mr. Tyler, his co-executor, was of imbecile mind, and
not fit to manage his own affairs, and that ha was under
restraint ; but that he was influenced, by other parties,
to insist upon his right as an executor under his mo-
ther's will.

Dr. ADDAMS contended that the application on the
part of Mr. Tyler ohould not bo received, as Mr. Tyler
was a lunatic, and had attempted the life of his keeper,
while walking one day by the seaside, and that the tes-