LEGAL PUZZLE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 280, 29 November 1935, Page 6

LEGAL PUZZLE

WITNESSES TO WILLS. ! TIME OF SIGNING NAMES. i SYDNEY, Nov. 16. ' The Sydney Probate Court may! shortly be called upon to clarify the legal situation which, has puzzled j British lawyers for nearly 100 years. | Must two witnesses to a will sign in the presence of each other? The Privv Council has contradicted itself on the point, while statutes make no provision for it. The case under consideration is one hi which a baker, while making his daily delivery of bread to the house of a testator, was asked to witness a will. Just as it was produced he hoard his horse playing up. and excused himself fur a few minutes. On his return the other witness had signed. The baker ;iien put his signature to the will. This may now be used as a test case. On June 14, 1845, the Privy Council in an English appeal decided that witnesses need not sign a will in the presence of each other. On July 25 in the same year, without referring to the previous case. the. Privy Council held in an Indian appeal that witnesses had had to sign in the presence of each other. It is pointed out r>y authority that although (Dominion Courts might be bound equally by an English case, so tiiat a curious position arises. In one New Zealand case the English decision was followed. It has been the practice generally to allow witnesses to sign, not necessarily in the presence of each other, but since the recent authority has drawn attention to the possibility of Dominion Courts being bound by the. -econd decision, lawyers have found i themselves in a quandarv.