him that she had destroyed it; she asked him to whom the estate would go when the will was burnt; he answered to his sister and children. The testator afterwards told a person that he had destroyed his will, and would make no other until he had seen his brother, J M, and desired the person would tell his brother so, and that he wanted to see him; he afterwards wrote to his brother saying: 'I have destroyed my will which I made; for, upon serious consideration, I was not easy in my mind about that will;' and desired him to come down, saying, 'If I die intestate, it will cause uneasiness.' The testator died without making another will. The jury thought this a sufficient revocation, and the Court of Common Pleas was of the same opinion: Lord Chief Justice de Grey observing, that this case fell within two of the specific acts described by the Statute of Frauds; it was both a burning and a tearing; and that throwing it on the fire with an intent to burn, though it was only very slightly singed, and fell off, was sufficient within the statute."

There must, however, be some tearing or burning, &c. : so a case where a will thrown upon a fire by the testator, was snatched away by a third person when only singed, and he afterwards expressed his determination to make one; this was held not to be a revocation, "for to hold that it was so," said Mr. Justice Patteson, would be saying that a strong intention to burn was a burning."

The intention to destroy must continue. Thus, where a testator upon a sudden provocation by one of the persons he intended to benefit under his will, tore the paper asunder, and afterwards, relenting, fitted the torn pieces together, and expressed his satisfaction that it was no worse; it was held that the will remained unrevoked.

Portions of a will may be revoked by cutting or burning them out; but in a late case, the Ecclesiastical Courts granted probate of a will with cross lines drawn in ink, over the bequest of certain legacies, and the probate copy given out by the court was a fac-simile of the will with the cross lines; for nothing can be added or erased from a will after its execution and attestation,

unless it be re-executed and re-attested, and the act in question did not amount to a destruction.

Where a will was last seen in the testator's own possession, and at his death, after due search, it was not forthcoming, the presumption is, that the testator destroyed it himself, with intent to revoke it; and the onus lies upon the party seeking to set up the will to displace this presumption.

If a codicil be found amongst the papers of a testator without the will of which it professes to be part, and its terms are so complicated with and dependent upon those of the will as to be incapable of separate construction, the destruction of the will revokes the codicil. If, however, the latter be an independent instrument, or it can be gathered from its contents that it is intended to stand alone, it will be valid.

No one but the testator, or some person acting by his direction, has a right to destroy a will. It is a misdemeanour punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, fraudulently to destroy or conceal a will.

A partially destroyed will may be revived, as I have already shown,-by the testator abandoning his intention to revoke it, and expressing an intention that it should remain in force.

X

ON EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

An Executor is a person to whom the testator by his will commits the execution, or putting in force, of that instrument and its codicils.

An Administrator is one who is appointed by the law to distribute the estate and effects of such as die intestate, or to carry out a will, no executor being in existence, or willing to execute it.

First, of executors.

An alien may be an executor, if he be not an alien enemy residing abroad, or one not having the Queen's license (express or implied) to remain in this realm. A bankrupt, insolvent, an outlaw, or a person attainted of felony, may be an executor. A married woman is capable of taking the office of executrix, but she cannot act without the consent or concurrence of her husband. An infant may be appointed an executor, but may not act until he has attained his majority. Should a female infant be nominated-her husband (should she have married), being of age, and assenting, may prove the will and execute it.

An executor may be expressly nominated in the will or codicil, or constructively appointed by the testator's recommending or committing to him the charge of those duties which it is the province of an executor to perform. Even a direction to keep accounts will in the absence of anything to the contrary, constitute the person to whom it is addressed an executor.

An executor's appointment may be either absolute or qualified. It is absolute when he is constituted certainly,

undeniably, and without restriction, in regard to the testator's effects, or limitation in point of time. Thus, a testator may make A an executor in respect of his household goods and plate, B in respect of his cattle and farming stock, Cin respect of his leasehold estates, and D in respect of his debts. When the appointment is of a qualified character (as, for example, until the testator's son arrive at his majority) as soon as the limited term for which the executor is constituted has terminated, the delivery by him of the property into his successor's hands, wholly exonerates him from further liability. An executor may be appointed conditionally, thus, a testator may nominate A for the office, and if he will not act, then B, and should he also decline, then C, or D.

An executor may be appointed solely, or in conjunction with others. In the latter case they are all considered in law as one person, and a payment by or to one is a payment by or to all.

The effect of the appointment to an executorship, is to vest in the executor a temporary and qualified interest in all the testator's personal property,—his real estate goes to his heir or devisee direct. The interest of the executor being what the law terms en autre droit-in the right of another should he, for instance, commit a forfeiture, the testator's goods are not subject to be attached; nor, should he become insane, would the testator's property be liable to the same control and restrictions as his own. So, if the reversioner be appointed executor of the lessee for years, the term does not merge, that is to say, become drowned or absorbed in the inheritance, which any other case it would do. So, again, if the executor be indebted to some creditor who has recovered judg ment against him, execution must be levied on the executor's private goods, and not upon those left by the testator in his charge. If a testatrix having goods of her own and goods of her testator, marry without having a settlement, her husband would be entitled to take all her own goods and sell them the next day to any one he liked; but he cannot so deal with what she had of

in