Sunnis Coun or Permlilvoruh 267 I 1 It was, likewife, liated, that the defendant intended further to r7g6. lhew, that lon fubfcquent to the W'ill in queltion (which it was law`!) fuggelled hadieen forgotten) the defendant had made and de- ; iiroyed another will, while in the pollellion of his rea- _ fen ; fo that his declarations had become important, to manifell, whether, by deftroying the fecond will, he intended to revive the lirll, or to die intellate. The counfel for the plaintgf objected to the admillion of the evidence propofed ; and relied upon the étlwjflion of the aét of Alfembly (1 vol. Dall. Edit. p. 5 5) which declares, *¢ that no Vill in writing, concerning any goods and chattels, or perfonal ellaate, {hall be repealed, nor {hall any claufe, devife, or bequell therein, be altered, or changed, by any wor-dr, or will, by word yr mouth onhr, except tbcfzmr be, in tb: lg]? time of tb: tgfator, committed to writing, aud, qfler the writing tberrj read unto tb: tgdntor, and allowed 5} bim, andprowd to bz jb done by two or more ·u.·itngfé:." It is attempted, however, to annul a Will regularly proved, and long preferved, without any one formality, that the law pre- fcribes, or common prudence, in relation to fo important a con- _ _ cem, would naturally egaét, r Doll.Rep. 278. '_ _ . For the dyérulant, tt was anfwered, that whether the a& of ` i cancelling the feoond will revived the lirll: Will, or not, was the quellion to be decided; and mull depend on the declaration of the party. The evidence offered, refpeéts only‘the delign of caincelling the fecond Will; which was an aft, that might be equivocal in itfelf, but was capable of being rendered delinite in its obje6t, by a cotemporaneous explanation, By Tue Comvr: Whether Mr, Bradford made a fecond Will, and afterwards cancelled it, are matters of fad}, to be fub. llantially and fatisfaélorily proved to the ]ury. B€ing fo proved, another objcét is contemplated, which, liltewife, affumes the nature of a fac}, whether by cancelling the fecond Will, the ` deccafed meant to revive the former inllrument, or to die intel`- fu. I tate; and we are at a lofs to conceive how fuch a meaning 79*/, (which it is unreafonablc to expeél to find in writing) {hould be afcertaincd, but by the tellimony of witnelles. The evidence, indeed, will not go direélly to deilroy an exilling Will, but, - merely to ihew, in ell`e£t, that the deceafed did not intend again to make, or re-cllablilh, a Will, which he had once aftually de- ltroyed. The fame point arofe in.Lauy&n ·v. Morrym, and was decided in the fame way by the High Court of Errors and Ap- eals.* P Let the witnefs be qualified. II. The doftrine of exprefs and implied revocations · of 'Wills, being much difculfed during the trial, the C1-um= jus- L1 a rich Q See past.
�
