her will, ratified the same with her mark. An
officious witness placed opposite to the mark
the name " Susannah Barrall," thinking that to
be her true name, and Sir Cresswell Cresswell,
notwithstanding the error, allowed probate.
"Their is enough to show," he said, "that the
will is really that of the person whose it
professes to be. Her mark at the foot or end of
it is a sufficient execution, and what somebody
else wrote against that mark cannot vitiate it."
The courts have of late years been actuated by
a much more liberal spirit with regard to wills
than they were wont to indulge in. Without
adhering strictly and undeviatingly to the letter
of the law, they make it their business, now, to
discover, if possible, the meaning of the testator.
This is precisely what anybody would wish to
do, and the lawyers, for a wonder, have done it.

Although it is a common practice for a
testator to sign every sheet (supposing it to be
written upon more than one) of his will, it is
not absolutely necessary to do so; but the
executing of the last sheet is indispensable, and
if done informally will vitiate the whole. A
case was decided in the present year where a
will was found written on several loose sheets
of paper, the last only having been executed,
and Sir Cresswell Cresswell allowed probate.
He considered that the primâ facie presumption
was that the sheets were all together when
the will was executed. An old gentleman,
however, who had written his will on several sheets,
and together, with the witnesses, executed the
whole of them except the last, was not allowed
by Sir John Dodson to have made a valid
will.

The signature of the testator, as we have seen,
must be " made or acknowledged in the presence
of two witnesses, present at the same time."
The witnesses need not, therefore, see the will
signed, but they must be careful to see that it
is signed. When a person made his will, and
called in two witnesses to sign it, telling them
that he wished them to sign a paper for him,
without informing them that it was his will, and
having the paper so folded that they could not
see whether it was signed or not, the will was
held to be bad. It would not have improved the
matter if the testator had condescended to tell
the witnesses that it was his will, if they had
not seen the signature. Once having been
satisfied, by ocular demonstration, however, that
the instrument had been signed, a statement that
it is a will, is a sufficient acknowledgment of the
signature.

The clause as to the witnesses being present
at the same time, &c., is an imperative one, and
it has been held that the will must be signed or
acknowledged, before either of the witnesses
sign. A gentleman who was ill in bed made a
codicil to his will, and signed it, in the presence of
his sister. On the day following, his medical
attendant visited him, and the invalid, producing
the paper, said, " This is a codicil, doctor, to
my will, signed by myself and my sister, at the
bottom of the paper; you will oblige me if you
will also add your signature, two witnesses being
neccessary." The sister added, "There is my
ignature, you had better place yours underneath."
The doctor signed, as requested, but
sir Herbert Jenner Faust declared the codicil to
be bad, saying, " When I clearly find that it is
expressly provided the two witnesses who are
present at the same time shall attest and
subscribe, can I hold that the one may attest and
subscribe on one day and acknowledge his or her
signature on a subsequent day? I am inclined
to think," he went on to say, " that the act is
not complied with, unless both witnesses shall
attest and subscribe, after the testator's signature
has been made or acknowledged to them,
when both are actually present at the same
time."

It is laid down, we have seen, that the
witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator.
This requirement the law will allow to have
been satisfied if the testator might have seen the
witnesses at the time of their attesting his will.
A gentleman, for instance, having signed his
will in his bedroom, the witnesses withdrew into
a gallery, between which and the bedroom there
was a glass door. As the testator might have
seen them sign if he had wished, this attestation
was held to be good. So in the case of a
person ill in bed, the fact of the curtains being
closely drawn need not prevent the witnesses
signing in the room. They will, in the estimation
of the law, be still in the presence of the
testator.

But, although the witnesses must sign in
the presence of the testator, they need not do
so in the presence of each other. There is no
absolute necessity—that is—for this; although
we recommend Mr. Blank, when his will
comes to be executed, to insist upon an exact
performance of the usual ceremony. In a
reported case, from which we infer that this form
of attestation is not absolutely necessary, a will
was executed, in the presence of two witnesses.
After the execution by the testator, one of the
witnesses left the room, and the other subscribed
his name, in the presence of the testator but in
the absence of his fellow witness. On the
return of the latter, he also signed, in the
presence of the testator and of the former
witness. Sir John Dodson held the will to be
good.

Never let our friend Mr. Blank, in any moment
of irritation, alter his will. If this have to be
done at all, let it be done in accordance with
the requirements of the statute, in that case
made and provided. Let the witnesses and Mr.
Blank attest the alterations, erasures, or
interlineations, as the case may be: or at the least
signify by some note or observation that such
changes have been made. Neither let him allow
any person interested in the will, to act as a
witness. Neither let him suppose that the will
which he may have made before his marriage
with Mrs. Blank, will stand him in good stead
afterwards.

In one word, let Mr. Blank make his will
"without controversy;" and, having bequeathed
a handsome legacy to us for our weekly instalments