The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-28 00:00:00

WiPlask of the ;OIL., sauLtbe ,ontY, gtollgh aITrYI imPintan
question, in the case was,--how far his title to the legac
was affected by the circumstance of his having attested th
execution. of the will. . i
Mr. Suonins having read an extract from the statute of,
frauds (29 Charles 11. ch. 3.) whereby it is enacted, "that
all devises of lands shall be in writing and signed by thei
devisor, , and attested and subscribed in his presence by
three or four credible witnesses," proceeded to argue, upon
the authority of 25 Geo. 11., that the attestation by a
legatee of any will or codicil, by which any legacy or otheril
benefit was given to himself, did, ipso facto, render such
devise or bequest null and void, as far as the attesting wit-
ness was concerned. The Learned Gentleman then observed,
that it ,was a singular and anomalous fact, and only to be ac-;
counted for by the attachment of the people of this countryi
to feudal tenures and associations, that a man may .give;
away a million of money by. a mere unattested codicil,*
whilst a cottage not worth 201. cannot be given without,
an attestation of the will by three or four credible wit-;
nesses. Mr. Sugde,n then read a case, in which it had
been decided by 'Sir W. Grant, that the attestation of any
will by a legatee did of . necessity void his legacy. Mr.
Sugden added, that the question having afterwards gone to.,
the Ecclesiastical Court, at Doctors' Commons, they de-,
tided against-the . judgment of Sir Wm. Grant, and this
decision was subsequently confirmed by the Court of
Delegates.
Mr. PHILLIMORZ followed on the same side, and having
used the same arguments as Mr. Sugden, expressed his
astonishinent that a question of such importance should
have remained hitherto undecided.

The MASTER of the ROLLS said, that although a legacy
of personal estate to a witness of a will conveying real
estate was void, because a will giving a real estate requi-
red witnesses, yet he saw no reason why a legatee of per-
sonal property should he disentitled to his legacy, because
he had witnessed the execution of a will bequeathing per..
sonal estate, as such will did not require in law any witness,
at all. His Honour thought that the decision of the Ec....
clesiastical Court, and that of the Court of Delegates, was
right. The authority of Sir Wm. Grant, which had been
adduced upon the other side, was undoubtedly as great as
authority could be; but his Honour felt himself obliged to
dissent from the judgment of that Learned Judge. His
Honour added, "I think this queStion ought to be carried
.to the House of Lords. It is. one of the last importance,
and should be definitively settled, upon one side or the
other."

* The affecting instance of a British soldier who, in the
agony of death, indited, with the point of his sword, a
nuncupative will upon the sands of Egypt, will here occur
to the recollection of every reader.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JUNE 27.
COLLINS AGAINST ULMER.

This was a suit to determine the validity of a will pro-
pounded by Mrs. Lydia Collins, the relict and executrix of
Mr. Samuel Collins, which was opposed on the part of two
nephews of the deceased, on the ground that the alleged
testator was of unsound mind at the period of its execution.
Sir Jon N Nicnom. considering the course which had
been pursued in this case by the. nephews, .was bound,
in pronouncing for the will, to condemn the opposing party
in costs.