The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-03-27

I work a total revocation OF n prior ono.
| unless the latter expressly or In erect re-
| Vokes the former. or the two be incapable
OF standing together. for though IL be
| a maxim, as Swineburnc says, that no
man can die with two testaments. yet
any number OF instruments whatever be
| their relative dates, or in whatever form
they may be. so as they are all clearly
| tostamcntary, may be admitted 10 pro-
bate as together constituting the last will
| Of tho deceased. And II q subsequent
! tcstamentary paper be partly Inconsistent
! with one OF an earlier date. then such
| latter instrument will revoke the former
as 10 those parts only which are .ncon-
sistent. Williams on Ex'ors & ed, lbZ,
10 Graft. 312
?. The onus is upon the party impugn-
ing the earlier wifi to show the intention
OF the testator TO revoke IT by tho lat
ter and in deciding such a question con-
lectures or slight probabilities VIII not be
sufficient. and the words This IL my last
Will" VIII have no weight whatever.
Leslie V. Leslie. 6 Ir. u. Eg 3S2; p Amer.
state Reports, 1858 (note).
An instrument stating itself to be the
testaior's last will and testament does
not necessarily operate 10 revoke a prior
will either as regards real or personal
estate.
when the paper styled "codicil No. g
was written. the testator was in Philadel-
phia. under treatment by distinguished
alionsts, and suffering from meancholia
with decisions. In this condition he con-
tinued until death. by his own hand, end
ed his sufferings. a few weeks after the
paper was executed. The evidence Is sat
isfactory ana conclusive that at the time
Of ITS execution the deceased was not
competent 10 make a testamentary dis
upqiff0u Of his urOpcffy.
There IS no error in the judgment oil
the Chancery Court. and II is affirmed.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith: Rudd VS..
Farmville and Powhaian Railroad Com
pany. Circuit Court Of Powhatan coun-
ty. Affirmed.
Judge John w. RELY: Sergeant VS..
Irving. Circuit Court Of buckingham
county. Affirmed.
Judge John A. Buchanan: Nye VS..
Levitt. Hastings Court city Of Norfolk.
Judgment reversed.
Judge George VI. Harrison: Gordon vs..
Whiuock and others. Chanccry Court
city Of Richmond. Affirmed.
Williams administrator rs. Baft0n's
executor. and Bartons executors vs..
Barton's heirs. Appeal and supersedeas
10 the Circuit Court Of Frederick.
Gilman q Son et ais. VS.. Ryan Of ais.
from the tndhfffJ court o. ttft ftts "a
Richmond Appeal and supersedeas.
FRANKIE VS.. Lloyd ct ais. Corporation
Court city Of Lynchburg. Appeal and
supersedeas.
Jolife vs. Riverside Land Company.
Circuit Court Of BotetoWt county. APP
peal refused.
Johnson VS.. Commonwealth. Hastings
Court city Of Staunton. Writ OF error
refused.
Dove VS.. Commonwealth. County Court
Of Madison county. Writ Of error re-
fused
Rousens vs.. Purvis ct ais. Chancery
Court city of Richmond. Dismissed for
failure to give supegsedeas bond.
Richmond Railway and Electric Com
pany VS.. Bowles. No. Is. Further ar
gued by Wyndham r. Meredith. Esq,
for plaintiff i'm error. and Marion l.. Daw-
son. Esq. for defendant in error, and
submitted.
Coleman. &c, vs.. Clayton, &C, No. Il.
Argued by j. \. Stubs. Esq. for ap-
pollant. and T. c.. Jones. Esq, for APP
pellee, and submitted
The next case 10 be called is Morotock
Insurance Company VS.. Cheek. manager,
No. IS. and the docket in regular order 10
No. So, inclusive. Then No. p. Price,
auditor, vs.. Smith. will be heard, and
the docket in regular order from No.
So on.