Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1833-07-11
From N ri aH0ni Complcr. JaaG %
MIR RANDDL.pHS WILL.

We arc indebted 10 the poltcness al n mernbnf oil
thr bar tpr thH folio vlng communication. The IN
icrcsing question ol law, likely To arse as To the
disposition Of Mr.. Randolph's property, will m 'kc
IT scco, table 10 all acquainted with tho cnenm,tnn-
ces undor which Mr. Randolph diGerent Wi were
cxccntod.
" Il is believed that the written viii by which
Nr Il ndolph cmanripuch his slaves sas made
IA 1922 and Tat forwards ~ ls31, he nude
Two successive wills, o,e IN Janaots aud Tho
other IN March ofllst yrnr, neither of whci
contained any such provision II the qucS-
tlon of emancipation rested here, the viii of iS22
would of course bcconroed by those Of later DAFT.
But it has been repeatedly stated thu during the
last sickness of Mr. RndoIph, whe he was ia
Plradelph,a he cnlIeI on persons present 10 take
40 ice thm i, hts III dat the ptovS Of thst
instrument which contemplated the cmancptlIo
af his slaves should b. catetlly carried into cf 81
THIS verbal tccemluph thc provisions OF the
old writing can ouly be regarded as a nnncapeIise
vii nnh that rlting must of course be found 10
ascertain what ia ics'aior has directed 10y hl,
nuncnpitivc will And ihon the question Wi. arise
|, whether an emancipation can be made by nun
cupatlvo will il any case; and 2Ny, whether N
this case ,he nunrupatve wall cold revoke the Two
written wills made IN 1899
Tfo statute prescribing The mode of emancipation
~
his last Wi, and testament or any other Instrument
IN writing, under his hand and seal, ot,estrd
and aroveh IN the county corporation court by
two Witnesses, or acknowledged " the party H.
he court oilie county where he she resides To
smlncipatc and set free his or her slaves | X G.
1919, 1913 J13
Under .hs statute, it has been decided that AN
Emancipation Ivy the will OF n ics,alor will be good
although the wall be neither sealed nor aHedcd
bV dag ritacSS. II may be admitted to probate
upon proorlhat ii is wholly in the tcstntors hand
writing and that being legal proof upon which
10 record will, the emancipation by viii SO pro
we'd will be eilcetual. Dunn v. Amen and Others
| Leigh 100 When however there is no wiring
III nuncupatvc vii, mrrcly--ihc question seem,
to Toe one Of considerable n,cctv. IAe following
remarks, taken from RljinSonS practicc. 12s
consn as much on the subj ct as can be found IN
the law books
In u late case in the Court of Appeals, CUInn v
Boo and o'aeys, 3 Leigh 100 it was animated by
Brooke, J. and Tacter, president, that slaves coul
not be cmancpared by naaebla'fre will. Bul
IT was not necessary to decide the point and ii was
left open for future considerations The compile,
nj this volume Is no! acquainted with the reasons
inducing this opinion, bul suppeses they mise out
of the ground taken by Jud ye Brn1ke in IAYiE
Hmpaa sc. Leigh $40, that emancipation IS
one OF tho highest nets OF sovereignty, aud can bc
conferred on'y IN the mo &c which the sta ute has
prescribed lfths he the ground, the question then
was to the moaniog ofthe statute, which makes il
awful for any person by his or her last Will and
testament TO omhucippie aud set free his or her
slaves. The statute does no, prescribe the mode
IN which the vii is to be executed or proved, bu
leaves these matters 10 be controlled 10y the CON
corning wills uAdar dat act party may dispose
a Il shn tolls Inv
person may emanclpate IN, slaves by will and u
nnncupalIve will isa ,riT, 1t seems TO follow tina;
an emancpalu'i m1y he made by a nuncupa.iye
will.
II the words of the statute regulating cmancip'.
ton do not necessarily exclude emancipation hg
nuncupnvc Will, II Is difficult to conceive any GOOD
reason for making distinction bctween a valid
Will tobeqoeoth slaves Hul a valid will to emanci-
pate slaves. l. is ,icuit to conceive WHY nertv
should be allowcdby n nnncupatiye will to be
queath his slaves To another, & shall not be permit
ted by anuncupatlvc wall to declare that they shall
not be held as slaves
Perhaps the opinion which has been intimated
proceeds upon the ground that the words cor by a
ny ether instrument in writing" coming imm,di-
a'e'y after the words y by his or her last will and
testament" require such last will and testament to
be ~ icfthng. In this there would be some force
II The consequences could be carried out But the |
case OF Dunn Annoy and oiteys has decided that
the will need no, be under SEAL and need not be al,
tested by any witness. And 10 conslrue the words
" or aeGho'c'sdgedb 10y the party" TO be applicable
To wis. would 81 RiSIsd by every one to be an
ss 'i sst las, of vii "s an. .'" tut.
ta!lsse. embrace one mode of emancipation, ana
that every thing which follows, down To the words
! to emanc'patc and set free, is applicable excu
sively to other instruments than wills
On the second question we refer to the act in
e. 1891 81 3, g. which .ciares tho, no will
u writing, or AIRY devise therein Of cha,,els shall