The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-07-13
JOHN B. JENKINS
Continued From First Page. }

by persons OF previous good repute
20 when 1t would be not unnatural
Shat the testator should leave his prop
erty.
In Virginia a will wholly written by
the testator nAed not be witnessed
nor sre any certain number of wit
netEes required To prove that II IS
the .estator's handwriting However,
Mr.. williams showed that a with Who'll
" written by the testator (calied a
ktc.ogvaph Wild must be proved fo-
probate like any other will in Eng
land and in two thirds OF the States
OF the Union. Indeed, all the New
England States New York. New Jer-
sey. Delaware Maryland and most OF
che States where tbs largest es,ates
pass by VIII, reaaire attestiag Wit
ness-s TO prove a Telegraph viii.
II was PECULIAR. said Mr.. Williams.
reviewing the history of tn. holo-
srnph will In Virginia. that although
We took our statute of wills almos,
bodily ffcm England, we should have
departed from the English lsgiast,on
IN this important respect.
A. q rule, the States permitting
Telegraph wills TO be admitted to pro-
Bate without proof by subscribing
witnesses follow the Louisiana Civil
Code. Some OF these States do re-
Eery than we find in Virginia In
North Carolina and Tennessee. the
handwriting and signature must be
proved by three witnesses and the
paper offered for probate must have
been found in the valuable papers OF
tho deceased or lodged with a third
person for Bookkeeping. In Virginia,
howsver. the will may be produced
without examination by a person who
hA -
paper he is interested in proving. And
pet there 10 no law to prevent the
eierk or court admitting this paper
20 probate upon the testimony alone
pr the interested party in favor OF the
Handwriting,
Danger of Forgery.
Mr.. Williams discussed at length the
danger OF forgery Of Photograph pa
pers. citing handwriting experts and
many decided cases He also show
ed by citation OF actual cases how dif-
ncult It often 10 to determine whether
Photograph writing was executed
with nnAl testamentary intent
The requirement of witnesses en-
tor In making will. A man may
write = will In his own handwriting.
Forget to destroy 1t. and years after
his death II may DO found and pro-
bated. when It does not at ali repre.
sent the disposition Of his property he
dnally desired to make.
Again. he brought out clearly the
danger OF fraudulent alterations IN an
unwftnessod win and quoted a West
Virginia case in which a will was
Buabatned that was not only scrawled
II cad pencil by man so ignorant
that he could neither spell CORRECTLY
y.or express himself grammaticaflv
but there were psnc1led erasures and
alterations that changed the will Ia
material respects Certainly, the on
portunity for fraud in a case like
his was very great and yet the court
wa< constrained 20 establish the will
~ tho law A. It exists
Yet. again. Mr.. Williams pointed
but tho tncrsased ease OF defeating
he testator's trsent by the destruction
81 hts Photograph WIN.
Changes In tho Law Sugaost0d.
The speaker advocated that the ho-
oGreph will b required to be wit
nessed. but If the power OF prece-
lent and dread of change operate
hgAinst this radical step" then he
rrged the Legislature to provide the
following barriers against forgery ana
Yaud:
(aI That the statute expressly re-
huire that the entire paper be entire
In the handwriting Of the testator
Ind not merely wholly written by
linn.
Obi That the statute require that
~ handwriting b. proved by at feast
No dlsinterested witnessed
(c) That no party In interest under
- viii 30 permitted to testify in
awos Of the writing
{d) A an additional safsSuard
lfoc( should be required either that
~ Will was Deposited with disin-
De0seod third party by the testator to
b produced a. his will after his
eath. or that It was found among the
ece6ent's valuable papers.
The statute embodying these pro-
onn1e by IT. very language should
= 1scome elfs0eivs Tor one ysar AZ