Mr. Moss then proceeded to read the depositions which had been' taken in England. The first was that of William Henry Quarrel, a solicitor practising London, whose evidence stated that the deceased came to his office November 20, 1922, and asked him to make her'a new will, She proneed a will which she handed to him and they went through it, clause by clause, making alte tions. As her time was short in England the alterations were made with pen and ink on the old will and some of them were in her own handwriting. She stated that she had no children and that her_intention was to sign the will in England and take it out wit her to the East, She further said toat the firat document was the existing will anc that she always had one, The new Will was sent to her, of her request, and he never saw the lady again. In the attestation of any will the signature of the testator must be Judge Purdy:—I would like to see the authorities under the Eng-Tish Jaw. I een hardly think that! the law requires such a foolish thing and would render a will invalid just because a testator did not sign his will first if all the witnesses were [present and signed at the same time and in each others' presence.
Mr. Schuh said that such was the ease and considered it a wise precaution so that the witnesses could see the signature of the tes-
Mr. A. M. Preston was then called and questioned regarding the execution of a will under English law. He produced Halsbury's "Digest of English Law" from which he quoted as follows: The signature of the testator to a will aust be made and acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses and such witnesses must attend and subscribe the will im the presence testator. The testator's signature] must be made or acknowledged when both the attesting witnesses fare actually present at the same time: and both witnesses must al tend. and subscribe after the testator's signature has been so made and acknowledged.
Judge Purdy:—If two witnesses signed and the testator took the will away without them seeing his signature it certainly would not be Placed first and those of the|valid even in our law. That how-witnesses after it. ever, is not the at present as} The next deposition read.wae both witnesses signed and saw the that of Bridget Bolger of London deceased do so but were not sure jas the cook at the house of whether it. was before or after Knowles where the! them. The mere fact that si deceased st fed whilst in Londor igned after the witnesses does not Witness said that knew ake the will invalid.
Hilton and last saw. her on the Mr. Preston:—I donot know! morning of the day she sailed fur anything about the facts of this France on her way to the East. se, all that I know, as an Eng-In company with the parlour maid lish solicitor, is that according to the witnessed a will the kitchen English law the two witnesses must at the request of Mrs. Hilton. The subscribe their signatures after!
in ws typewritten, but she did the testator. not see any of the em tents.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.