The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1881-09-23
PROBATE COURT.-HnToN,J JUDGE.

In the matter of admitting to probate the
last Will and Testament of Thomas Cooper
deceased. In admitting this Will to probate
the Court said: "The general tenor of the
evidence is that the handwriting of the in
|strument is that of the deceased, and also
= his signature. The clause of attestatioi
reads as follows Signed, sealed, declared
and published by the said Thomas Cooper
las and for his last Will and Testament III
the presence of US, who, at his request and
! in his presence, and in presence of each
Eother have subscribed our names as wit
knesses hereto. FRANCIS A. CHASE,
CHARLES JACOBS.
! 1t further appears from the evidence offered
e. by the petitioner, that, at the time the wit
nesses signed this instrument, Mr.. Cooper
did not inform them Of the nature of the
paper, that they did not see his signature to
the same. nor any part of the instrument
except line or two, from which one of the
witnesses surmised that it was the hand
writing of the deceased: that he made nc
! publication of the same i'll any way, and that
Bhe did not ask them to sign as witnesses al
oall, but simply and only, Ito sign paper,
(which he produced. and which they did each
Rof them sign after inquiring of him IF il
twas anything that would hold them
Under our statute it is plain that the only
; requisites to a valid will are, that it should
= be in writing and signed by the testator, OF
. by some person i'll his presence for him, al
his express direction, ana attested and sub
scribed III the presence OF the testator 10y
= two or more competent witnesses. If this Il
M correct Interpretation of the statute, ther
the only question in this case Is whether the
Will of Thomas Cooper was legally "attestec
| by two or more competent witnesses"
think it was. 1t will be seen that the statute
requires no form of expression nor declara
ton of the testator, but only an attestatior
and subscription of the witnesses i'll the
presence of the testator, and L am entirely
satisfied from close inspection of the au
thorities, that the settled doctrine is that the
|testator need not execute the instrument IL
the presence of the witnesses, that they neec
mot see each other sign, or sign III eacf
others presence, but all that is necessary
is, that the testator shall see their signing
or be in the situation where he can so do.
i This Will was written by the testator
signed by him, and in his presence signed
! by these two witnesses named. He must
have known what he signed and what he re-
.quested the witnesses to sign, and the fact
that he asked them by his act, if not in ex.
press words, to attest the same was, in effect
n declaration sufficient, l think, to amount
ito declaration on his part, that such instru-
|ment and his signature to it was his act, al
though the witnesses did not know its char
Iacter or contents.
AS the supreme court of Massachusetts,
BAY, in case quite similar to this: 1T was
|as if the testator had said, this instrument
|is my act, it expresses my wishes and pur-
poses, and though / do not tell you what it
|is desire you to attest that it is my act,
|and that have executed and recognized it
|as such in your presence"
do not understand that our statute re-
|quires any formal publication of the instru1
|ment, or any declaration of its contents to
the world, or to the witnesses even, but
simply and only that it shall be made to APP
pear that it is the untrammeled conscious
and intelligent action of the maker. / am
lied to believe that this was the case in this
instance, and that all the requirements of
the statute have been complied with.
An order will be entered admitting the
Will to probate and its execution as prayed
for.