Star.
London, England, 1829-02-02 00:00:00

contended that the eei!entit ettoplatety negatlecd the'ir
identity. At this period then the will was nit destroyed;.
this fict was confirmed by the conalisct of the deceased,
and by his deck/anions to persons whom he had no in•
teiet to deceive. In the autumn of 182$, he said he
had a will in his hon chest, and that Dr. Fleming and
Mr. Colvin were two of the executors; this could re•
let to no other Will than that cf Between 1821
and 1828, the deceased had purchased Fonthill and
other large estates to the value of nearly 500,0001. all
of which wouldhave been affected by the hiortmain :di-
mes, it the deceased had intended to found schonle.
Hence it was argued that there was a neceesity for a et. I
ferent disposition of his property: But the deceased bid
applied a proper remedy in bis own mind; hi hid de-
termined to sell the estates, and he did reconvert tre
greatest part Of the real estate into personal propertf,'
tor, his real estate at the time of his decease was Debi
60,0001. ry
001. Then where was the Court to find the prbill
of. the destruction of the will? It was clear that tfe
bad declared, in 1823, that he bad the will of 1814 in
his posession. Mr. Joseph Hume (of whom Dr. Phil-
limore had maid, indeed, that he was more remarkable
for perseverance than acuteness, and that he had been
hoaxed by the deceased) deposed to a distinct avowal "
on the part of the deceased its January, 1825, that he.
had a *ill, that it was in his cabinet, and that its objeclt
was to promote edecation i.r Scotland. A declination ,
of the deceased was-deposed to by Mr. H; Phillips, in
a conversation on the 4th of July, 1826—namely, thait
he had two wills. The Learned Advocate contended,
that the sOlcerity of these declarations was consistent
with the wbok tenour of the deceased's history, Is
true there were counter declarations. Mr. Hart Davis,
deposed to a conversation with the deceased in tie
spring of 1822, • herein the latter said, the law would
make a very good will for him, and which left an
impression on Mr. Davies mind that he intended so die
intestate. But this was highly improbable, at. that
period especially, and Mr. Davis must have ashen.
Jerstood him. Mr. Alderman Wood stated, that ins
March, 1825, he had a conversation with the deceased,
in which the latter said the law would dispose cf his
property and make a very good will. This would show
nut only an abandonment of the intentions which
he had cherished all the time he was in India, and
adhered to for seven or eight years after, but an errial
iegard for all his relations. Hes moreover, told Mr.
Wood Viet he had intended to found a Unitarian
lege io India ; that he had thought the best 'mode of clis••
posing of his property to be the applying it to education;
but since he had become acquainted with his family, he
had thought it better to destroy his will, and had de•
stroyed it. It was not possible that the deceased could,
be sincere in this. Mr. Wood admitted that the deceased
said in 1825 he bad a copy of Isis will in India, which
confirmed a declaration of Mrs. Jane Phillips of a moss
nition of that will, showing that he was aware of its ex-
istence. The Learned Advocate then proceeded to ex-
plain the declarations imputed to Mr.Colvin, that the de.
ceased had no will. arising tiom a mistaken idea that the
paper of 1821 had revoked the will of 1814; this was the
only pro, f of the destruction of the will except the cir-
cumstances of it not being forthcoming; bet when the
basil* of the deceased, especially in his lawn years, were
considered, his carelessness as Id his pipets, and thevess
access which any.peison might attain to the., it win
imposs ble to allow the absence of the paper to raise
any inference that be had destroyed it. He (Sir Henry
Jencer) did not impute its destruction to any individual
in particular; he only contended that it was not done
by the deceased. Under all the circumstances of the
case, he submitted that it was not one which ,raised a
presumpti n of law, either that the will was destroyed,
or that it had been destroyed by the testator axioms re
' vacant& The Court, therefore, could not pronounce
against a peifect paper.
' br Doosou tollo•ed on the same side,
The Bishop of Lland•tf sac beside the Judge dating
the whole day.