The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-30 00:00:00

“77FICIOCUMgnaller.ifor,“: - '
,
-. . •
-......-..
t t oats r. 110nD011.-4111PIIMATION ADA 111/ITlWeg•
:111,14 was a question of probate ea to the last will
, . "I'd eodicil* of Jobs Forbes, Esq. deceased, .late of
Whersleen,lCorth 111#11tim ; and of Fitsrey-square, Lon-
Attb. •
. Ihe decessii, (Who, it appeared, was suddenly
takes ill only three days before) died on the 420th of
' June last, at his house, in Fitsroy-square, at the age
of 7s, pmeessed of considerable property, supposed
to antoont to. about 350,0001. Before his death the
deceased made a will, by which he left 50004 besides
an annuity of 15411. per annum, to Mrs. Forbes. his
sitter, who was much advanced in years ; also to the
children of his deceased brothers and sisters he be.'
quathed considerable property. The nephews and
nieces bt brothers and sisters amounted in number to 1
16, and la reversion to their children, grand nephews]
sad neiees of the testator, who amounted to 13. ho
left upwards of 200.0001. To this will be appointed
Execetors, Charles Forbes, John Forbes, and Jlichie
• rlrbiii, Etqrs. with another relation of the name of
- 'tithe!). 'rue rest sad residue of his real personal
easteehe bequeitited to his Executors, "to stand sad
`sower for the same,'' subject to legacies, in such part
to• Ise shoeld afterwards dispose of by any codicil or
codicils tint be 'shook' afterwards make to his last
• wilt; The testamentary papers were likewise pro-
' pomaded se codicils, in the hand-writing of the de-
ceased. (Narked A. and 11.—The will of the deceased
was contained in the form of instruction., which he
pat in the hands of his solicitor, Mr. Hitchinson, of
Llecule's-imt, ea the 2d if May. 1820, fur the par-
' pose, as be intimated to that gentlemaa, of altering or
• stables a mew will, so as to include further bequests.
" Du. Sweatt( and PHItIIMOIC argued in Support of
the will and codicils being entitled to pcobate, as cop-
ulates the testaaisatary intentions of the deceased,
' and which he wail prevented 'executing by, the act of
God, occasioned by 'ealla_letilioth ; 'slime, its all such
cages; the rule sad practice of the Court !asp to give
elect to what ohrist Orli lo collected as the inten-
tions of the testator with respect, to the ultimate
dis-
position of hie property.
The present prossediart commenced with a meet.
which was lodged by Mee. Caroline Gordo's, to oppose
probate being greeted to the papers propounded. she
being largely interested son niece of the testator's.
and a residnary legatee.
Dr. Losnixovom. and soother Civilian, opposed the
,to o papers bides admitted to probate, on the grind
that they were lesperfeet papers, from which so testa-
memory illtalliiAll &mild be shelve, as to any con-
tiouity of ingestion Is the deceased that they should
ever operate. • ' ' '
Sir J. NICHOL observed, that these papers, on the
face of then', were confessedly imperfect. The evi-
dence of intentioa was to be takes from intrinsic cir-
cumstances, bat the Mint inttifliOettll the deeessed,
that it should operate, wee *he hifarterl. aoll that be
roes prevented enfold°, titii intiatimi,hi the act of
OW. It mast be pre! mud sot Wifely an Inoepdve,
but a dellbeeste ice. The continuity of deliberate in-
tention' Was Sae to deed lopeasise witness. or one
isolated fiet.:lrst was. * ago Wisp from tie *bald of
thit e‘ielliCe. New the who,* of the evideacs la this
isas went to show deliberatt intention that these pa-
pers were intended by the deceased to operate, as will
and codicils, bat be was prevented executing by the
act of Bod. Not to proaowiee is fairest of these pa-
pers would be a manifest departure from established
riles of law.. Thh Court; therefore. leaving the effect
of these papers to the Court of Chancery for con-
struction, pronounced for their force and validity. as,
codicils to the last will and testament of the detwasesl,•
Led decreed probate to issue to the executors named
iii be will.
4 ,
&If THE 000 DI or J. NASMITH, lISCIRSIID.
This cue related to the will of Dr. James Nemeth.
deceased s the will propounded bearing date its 1803.
Wimp this matter was formerly before the Court, it
some to tipon the quistion of admitting an allegation
slvitetid upon die part of Hare and the other executors
under the said will. The Curt expressed an opinion
, .
t?at it ought not to be admitted to proof.
. Dr. Lireatriarots recapitulated these facts, and
amid, the; at length this Court hid expressed its
opisibu, that finally the teetter must be settled by a
decision of the Court of Session. as the testator was a
disilelled Reetstioin. • 11 wee accordingly so referred,
Mae Court PrSessioes decision was is favour of the
An of 1801 f. and of two other codicillary papers pro-
-4,.. i
Passooli• ,Alter this decisioi. Mrs. Ryder. one of the
deco:tied..next of kin, determined altogether to oppose
both the will sad codicils. Under these circumstances,
chit Coast in question.dittected probate of the ;aid will
and udisils as issue. The next of kin iliettearried
farm
au appeal this seatenci tap to the Ronsaaf Lords ;
aid is tie' Meath of judiihis year. thee Lordships
Poled Iv indiiseeel, iig which they entirely reversed
itseieitenc• of the Court of Session in Scotland ; and
thii ioissiirled the cause by pronouncing for the ap-
peal; and by finding that the Hiatt-assent bearing date
in-September 1803, and propounded as the will of
Dr. Nasmyth, was in fact revoked. and annulled by
him; and that the several papers annexed thereto
were of no effect or avail as- testamentary papers or
depositions. 'l'hen the ease *as remitted back to the
44.Puet of Session in Scotland. So that, in point of '
twat, the judgment of the Lords amounted to a finding
]!flit the deeeased was dead intestate. Accordingly, it
ilr'as his (Dr. Lashington's) duty to:inove the Court to
.revolie the probate which bad been granted in error,
aokto decree letters of administration to the next of
kin; and be obottld sabniit that if the Court had ex.
premed its desire to be guided by the decision of the
Cotirt'orSesolon; sow that the decision of 04 Court
had travelled to the Appeal 'Conn and had been re-
versed, a fortiori. the -Court would be guided by the
judgment aid decision. of the House of Lords.
, Sir JOHN .14c611014. said he perfectly well recollected
the Use. and that in• the allegation which had beep
brought in ii this-Onsrt, stiopg grounds were laid foe
pronosecing that the deceased, Dr. Nastnyth, hag died
intestate; Ito: this Court, considering that thedeoessem.
11:41' ttiell in scotlani, felt, although here inigive be
pia. ti of his property in England, that eventually (lie-
tributino must be-made in Sientiassil;:midleiserefikilit
had.felt it to be its duty to wait fur a!deetilorsapot
the ease proceeding front the Coirt *of Itimitai? Oaf
looking to the appeal that Lad.. in art
,blSrtj
c series' so the las- ?de: to Ito `ereat:!lt'afi ..t
rtto9ifitte
I;tte si
title .091111 My 1144111 •a gi . *Ae,
ii actiedias, i4riivrofircoAithinsiest,

•f Oohs easel:. tit
imeitt..eteit i
• ,