himself, the deceased ever mentioned that he had a duplicate of the will still remaining in India. It was a fact clear and incontrovertible, that, though one duplicate of the will was in the possession of the deceased in 1816, the other duplicate was not known to be in India in the deceased's lifetime, nor until produced under the seal of the Supreme Court, at Calcutta, five or six months after his death. In 1816, the deceased visited Scotland. Mr. Wilson, his confidential friend, who had quitted the English bar, and retired to Edinburgh, was then dead. Previous to proceeding there, however, the deceased deposited in the custody of Mr. Bland, his fellow partner in Messrs. Whitbread's house, a paper which he declared to be his will. The deceased, when he gave him the paper, observed, -, man, take care of it, for if any thing happens to me, that is my will.' After his return from Scotland, the deceased received back this paper from Mr. Bland.

There

was no reason to doubt the sincerity of the deceased on this occasion, or that the paper was his will received from India, for there were then no traces of any other will. Then here was the original will taken out of the envelope in which it had been received, and put into another, so that at least there were two envelopes, and this was not an immaterial circumstance in the case; and, moreover, here was the will traced back again to the deceased's own possession. Whilst in Scotland, he made inquiry about the professors and their emoluments, and the state of education in that country, respecting which the court had the testimony of Professor Davison, who deposed that, in conversation, the deceased

repeatedly said he had made a will, but did not know if it would be valid. Here was no intimation of the terms and contents of the will, though some doubts of its validity. Nothing more was heard of the will, or of any testamentary act, till October, 1821: for though the deceased did talk in loose and gencral terms respecting the subject of education in Scotland, he specified no plan, nor mentioned his intention of doing any thing by will. The deceased went on with his speculations, sometimes with profit, sometimes with loss, and in purchasing estates. Mr. Drake, his solicitor, deposed to a conversation in 1818, when the deponent suggested that he should make a will, or republish his will if he had made one, as real property, purchased after the date of a will, would not pass thereby, but would go to the heir-at-law. The deceased replied "My heir-atlaw, Mr. Drake, is a vagabond in the back settlements of North America." Here, then, the deceased was informed, that an afterpurchased estate would not pass by the will he had made; and Mr. Drake had intimated doubts respecting the legal capacity of his heir-at-law to inherit real property in this country. The deceased, however, took no step till three years after, in October, 1821, when, being on the point of going to Paris, in company with Mr. Phillips, the auctioneer, a hasty transaction took place at the house of Mr. Colvin. The deceased produced the Indian will, and, whilst the carriage was waiting at the door, altered the will, and executed a testamentary instrument, disposing of the East Mark estate, which he had purchased, to Mr. George Mortimer.

The exact extent of

the alterations in the Indian will, any more than the contents of the other instrument, could not now be ascertained; for the latter was destroyed by the deceased in the following year, and the former was not now forthcoming. The amount of the act done must be collected in some degree, from Mr. Colvin's statements and subsequent acts. Whether there were obliterations or insertions,-whether the other instrument was on the back of the will, or on a separate paper, were facts in dispute; the subscribing witnesses differed in their testimony. It had been called a codicil, but there was no proof that it republished the will. The observations attributed by the witnesses to Mr. Colvin at subsequent periods, seemed to show that he spoke of the instrument as a will, not as a codicil. It also explained what the deceased meant when he spoke of two wills." The fact was then admitted, that there were alterations and obliterations in the Indian will before the deceased went to Paris, and that another instrument was executed. This was not a codicil, renewing and confirming the will of Calcutta, except so far as altered, but a testamentary paper for a separate object, disposing of landed property, and appointing new ecutors. This instrument was left in the hands of Mr. Colvin, who, as it would appear, without any authority from the deceased, set about drawing up an instrument embodying and consolidating the Indian will and the other paper of the 2nd of October. He took the advice and instructions of Mr. Drake, and prepared a sketch and a draft; the latter he sent to Paris, together with Mr. Drake's letter of instructions. It could

66

ex

hardly be supposed that Mr. Colvin would have dared to introduce or exclude what he did not conceive to be the intention of the deceased, contained in the two papers, or communicated confidentially.

But in this draft

were some very material variations from the will of 1814. All the annuitants were omitted, a new set of executors were appointed, and a blank was left for legaces, instead of annuities. If the Indian will had been thus altered, the obliterations must have been great indeed. The education plan was left, it was true, but even that was slightly altered, "the whole of Scotland," being changed for the counties of "Aberdeen and Mearns.” These facts were not immaterial to the question, whether the old duplicate could now be set up, and whether, in point of fact, it was not destroyed. This draft, moreover, contained a legacy to the niece in America, thus expressed: "I give to my niece—, in America, the sum of —l." On the receipt of this paper, the deceased showed a considerable degree of indignation, and began to abuse Mr. Colvin in no measured language, if Mr. Phillips was to be credited: and it was not improbable, for the deceased was an irritable person. They were afterwards reconciled; but the deceased never adverted to the paper, and never executed it, or approved of its contents. In January, 1822, the deceased returned to England; and the Indian will and the paper of October, 1821, were delivered to the deceased, and deposited in an iron chest, which was conveyed to his house. This Indian will, thus traced to him, was never after seen by any human being, unless it was part of the instrument of October,