if the premium be paid after it is due, and within
such limited time, the executor can recover if
the life dies within such days of grace. I think
that then thirty days are only with reference to
the insurance of the life for future years. I think
the office is bound to receive the premium within
the thirty days, and to go on insuring for future
years if the person assured is alive, but that
they are not bound to do so after his death."
It will be well then, we may infer, for Mr.
Blank to pay his premiums punctually, and not
to compel his executors to raise this question.

Before leaving this branch of very common
law, we are reminded of the possibility of Mr.
Blank becoming a volunteer. If he should be
induced to take up arms, let him look to his
"life policy." Under ordinary circumstances
we know that such a proceeding would vitiate
the contract, and it will be well for him to learn
how far the particular office in which he is
insured will recognise his martial ardour.

Having secured a provision for his family by
the insurance of his life, we find the current of
our illustrative man's thoughts setting in very
strongly towards his Last Will and Testament.

Imprimis, then, who can make a will? Mr.
Blank, under ordinary circumstances, we know
is endowed with this privilege. There are
certain contingencies, however, which may rob him
of the power. If he should have the misfortune,
as was the case with my Lord Sandys in
1689, to be banished by act of .parliament, he
becomes civilly defunct, and cannot bequeath
his property. If he should be afflicted with
idiocy, or lunacy, the like incapacity will attach
to him. Possibly, if he were to commit a felony
(though the decisions are not altogether
satisfactory upon the point) he would be debarred
from the legal attributes of a testator.
Certainly if he were coerced, or under the pressure
of " undue influence," his will would be of no
effect.

But what is " undue influence?" Would the
conjugal blandishments of Mrs. Blank come under
that category? Are barrels of oysters, consigned
to affluent old ladies in the country, to be looked
upon as instruments of " undue influence?" Can
we be accused of exercising undue influence
when we exhibit a fictitious delight in the stories
heard so often from these old ladies' lips—when
we assume a supernatural piety, in their sight—
when we become suddenly interested in the
natural history of the domestic cat— when we
pronounce home-made wines to be infinitely preferable
to those of Spain and Portugal? Even
the lawyers themselves are at doubt upon the
point, and only speak upon it vaguely. Lord
Cranworth says that the vitiating influence must
be an influence exercised either by coercion or
by fraud. In order to come to the conclusion
that a will has been obtained by coercion,
it is necessary to establish that actual violence
has been used or even threatened. " The
conduct of a person in vigorous health
towards one feeble in body, though not unsound
in mind, may be such as to excite terror,
and make him execute as his will an instrument
which, if he had been free from such
influence, he would not have executed. Imaginary
terrors," he continues, " may have been created
sufficient to deprive him of free agency. A will
thus made may possibly be described as obtained
by coercion. So as to fraud: if a wife, by
falsehood, raises prejudices in the mind of her
husband against those who should be the natural
objects of his bounty, and by contrivance keeps
him from intercourse with his relatives, to the
end that these impressions which she knows he
had thus formed to their disadvantage may never
be removed, such contrivance may, perhaps, be
equivalent to positive fraud, and may render
invalid any will executed under false impressions
thus kept alive. It is, however, extremely difficult
to state"—we find to be the substance of
the learned judge's opinion —" in the abstract,
what acts will constitute undue influence in
questions of this nature. It is sufficient to say
that, allowing a fair latitude of construction,
they must arrange themselves under one or other
of these heads: coercion or fraud."

We have asserted that a lunatic cannot make
a will. If, however, he be blessed with
occasional lucid intervals, he may do so whilst
thus temporarily sane. But there will always
be a strong element of suspicion attaching to
such an instrument. " There is no possibility,"
says Lord Cranworth, " of mistaking midnight
for noon; but, at what precise moment twilight
becomes darkness, is hard to determine."

As to Mrs. Blank, she may not make a will,
unless she has a separate estate, or special power
to appoint by will given to her. An infant may
not make a will. A person born deaf and dumb
cannot make a will, unless it can be shown that
he possessed sufficient understanding to read it
when written. With the blind it is different.
They can undertake this legal solemnity.

How the will has to be made? " No will,"
says the Wills Act, which is the safest
authority we can quote, " shall be valid unless
it shall be in writing and signed at the foot
or end thereof by the testator or by some
other person in his presence and by his direction,
and such signature shall be made or acknowledged
by the testator in the presence of two or
more witnesses present at the same time, and
such witnesses shall attest, and shall subscribe
the will in the presence of the testator, but no
form of attestation shall be necessary."

This is the broad road, upon which Mr. Blank
may safely travel when disposing, by last will
and testament, of his worldly goods. There
are, however, as is usual in most legal
highways, many little twists and turnings, where
an intelligible guide-post may be of service to
him.

Thus, although his signature, the Wills Act
tells him, is a necessary requisite, he may, if not
great at caligraphy, make a mark. Moreover,
we gather from the following incident that it ia
of no vital importance should any other name
than his be placed opposite this mark. A
widow lady named Clarke, but who before her
marriage had been called Barrall, having made