Prerogative Court, Wednes...
-lz -u^ 4---lus.o uuwrrveu, in giving sentence, tiat this canse had been very fully atgued on a formier coairt-day. The suit was brought before the Court amicably between the parties for the poir- pose of obtaining the opinion of the Court in respect to the validity of a testamentary paper which was proyounded as the last will and testament of Abraham Mllontetiore, Esq., tleecased. And althoough the property in this ease was or very ceasiderable amount (nearly 500,0001.), and the matter was most elaborately argued, the Court on the former day entertained a very strong-opinion in respect to the decision it should come to, yet it felt extremely anxious not to give even the .pspeeance of hastiness to that decision, but, on the con- traq, tO devote to th c ase the moat ma~ture consideration. After the iost deliberate attention to nl the details of this case,the Court,how. ever, could find no groundi fo'r departing fromt the opinion which it, hat originally formned on it. (Th learned Judge then carefully en. capitulated thc facts, but these have been reported by us go lately, 'hat it will be unnecessary nwdv to re-state them,) The, Court.ad- -veited to the several provisions of pancr A,.tlte executed will df thb 3d'of Ilay, 182D, by which-the deceaisedleft ain bqoal pOrtion to cach of- his children of' 25,0001. a piece, and a -variety of qther legacies. The sutbsequent teitamentarv papers D; E, and' F, wherein the de- ceased-proposed to leave to Iiis wsfeaPfer his decase`6,00Il. a year until their children sheuld have attained a-certain age, and rafter- wards 4,0001. a year, wite a power of Risposiaig by will of 100l000l., aud the recital madce by- hin that he had -invested- in- the funds to the amount of 10,0001. sterling a piece, in. the nmie of each of his sons anti daughters; and the bequest contained In the papers B and C (the one in French, and. the other in Eaglisl,), beIug the last testamentary dispbsition of deceased, of his two freehold estates to' his two sons, and the whole of his per .onalty to his wife. The CouTt, iri allusion to the will of May, 1820, observed, that no mention -was. made of thie realty in it; and therefore it was, perhaps, the testator'e intention that that part of his property should follow the usual course of the law; but in everv other respect it appeared to be a considetste and equitable dis- position of his estate; and unless revoked, must operate so far as it went. As to D, E, an d F, they were obviously unfinished papers, and at the utmost-could be considered onlv a-s indications of what it might be his intention at rome future time to do in the way of an al- tcredi testnment. In regard to Paper C, (all thle circumstances in rc- spect of which the Court weighied with great caution), not to men- tion the departure that its provisions-manifestel1 from all the testa- tor's orevious beneficial inten:ious in- favour of his children, whom he thereby left vithout any testamentary benefit whatever (or any other bencefit but the several investments of 10,0001.), and the be- quest of the whole of his personalty, -which was thereby conveydil to his wife (to whom, however, he had shown that he nmeant to leave-, limited, interest only, by naming an annuity, of 6,0101. a-year, and Sxing the sum over which lsc should have a dispo'sing power by will to 100,0001. 3 per cents., instead of leaving her the -wholecre siduc). There were other obvious inconsistencies which would not allow the Court to consider it as entitled to- its -pro- bate. The Court was by no means satisfied of the per- fectly disnosing mind and sounr capacity of the decea ed within five hoturs of his decease, when paper C was written; and, upon the whole, thle Couirt wras of optnion that this imperfect paper ( could have no legal effect, supposing, even, that all the cir-I cuMstances plea(led in the allegation admitted of proof; and there- fore it releeted the allegation which propoundled s,,ch paper. As the vill nf1820 hv no means includled the whole property .the wife wvould still be entitled to a large residlue. Dr. JEyasrit said, the Court would'give himn leave to observe, that not only would Mlrs. iilontefisre be perfectly disposed to follow the suggestions of the Court in resuiect to her own capabilitv of en- larging the testamnentary benefit of her children, and fulfilling all the affectionate intentions of the deceased in their favour, bat he (Dr. Jenner) was anxious to assure the Court. that lUrs. Alontcflore woild even have felt mortified had- the decisioni of the Court been diftefrent from that wlich it had just given. Neitber would the paper in question have been, in her behalf at all submitted to the Court, had not her legal advisers and her fricnds pressed upon her moststrenuously the absolute necessity of obtaining this Court's opinion on its validity. __ PREROGATIVE COURT, WEDNXESDAY. Nov. 24. MU.Vrk;l1URN AGAINST IONTE1YTYORE AND OTHERS.