By s. 13. Every will executed in manner herein before mentioned shall be valid, without any other publication thereof.

By the statute of frauds, (29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 5) it was not required that the will should be signed "at the foot or end of the same," but it was only generally required that the signature of the testator should be "made" in the presence of witnesses; the late statute requires that it shall be made " or acknowledged" in the presence of witnesses present

at the same time.

Almost immediately after the statute of frauds, it was decided that where a man wrote a will with his own hand, and his name appeared in it written by himself, it was a sufficient signing within the statute, whether the name appeared at the top or bottom, or any other part of the will; since the statute 29 Car. 2, c. 3, had not appropriated any particular place in the will for that purpose. (3 Lev. 1; Freem. 538; 9 Ves. 248.) But now the signature must be "at the foot or end."

Sealing is not a sufficient signing. (1 Wils. 313; 2 Ves. sen. 454; 1 Ves. jun. 11.) But a mark is a sufficient signing, whether the making his mark, can write or not. (8 Ad. and Ell. 94.)

person,

Execution of a codicil, which is on the same sheet of paper with the will, referring to and confirming it, has been considered as a sufficient execution of the whole. (16 Ves. 167; and vide 2 B. and B. 650.)

Where the will is written on separate sheets, each must be signed; a signature of the two first sheets is insufficient, especially if there was an intention that the whole should be signed. (Doug. 241.) But where the will was written on one sheet only, the last page of which was signed and attested, it was held sufficient, although the will itself stated that the testator had signed the two first sides, which, however, had not been done. (2 Brod. and Bing. 650.)

It was held, under the statute of frauds, that it was not necessary for the testator actually to sign his will in the presence of witnesses, (3 P. Wms. 254; 2 Tyrw. 73) therefore it was held sufficient for the testator to own his signature in their presence; (ib.; 1 Ves. and Bea. 362, and the cases there cited; 2 Ves. 454; 1 Ves. jun. 10; 8 Ves. 504; 18 Ves. 183) and it is expressly provided by 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 9, that 66 acknowledging shall be sufficient;" it was also held, under the statute of frauds, that the witnesses need not be present at the same time, when either the testator signed or owned his signature; thus, where a devisor published his will in the presence of two witnesses, who attested it in his presence, and some time after sent for a third, and again published it in his presence, the attestation was held to be sufficient; (contrà, 1 P. Wms. 740) this doctrine was established in conformity to the weight of authority, though it seems unwillingly. (1 Ves. jun. 14; vide also Prec. Chan. 184; 3 Burr. 1773; 1 Ves, and B. 362.) But the statute, (1 Vict. c. 26) as to future wills, requires that the signature of the testator "shall be made or acknowledged by the testator, in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time.”

The words in the recent statute as to the attestation, are the same as those in the earlier statute; it is not necessary that a devisor should

* Both statutes in this have adopted the rule of the civil law, as reformed by the Code in the Novels. (Gilb. Rep. 261.)

actually see the witnesses execute; it is presumed that if he might, he did see. (1 M. and S. 294; M. and M. 12.) But where the witnesses were actually without the reach of the organs of sight, the attestation was considered as out of the devisor's presence. (Ib.) Where the witnesses withdrew into a gallery, between which and the chamber where the devisor lay, there was a lobby with glass doors, and the glass broken, through which the devisor might have seen from his bed the table in the gallery at which the witnesses wrote their attestation, it was held sufficient. (Carth. 81; Salk. 688; 1 Lord Raym. 507; 3 Salk. 395.) But where the witnesses, for the ease of the testator, actually went into another room and attested the will, the attestation was held insufficient. (1 P. Wms. 239; 4 Bro. P. C. 71; 19 Ves. 671.)

It was not necessary that the fact of the attestation being made in the presence of the devisor be stated in the attestation clause; if questioned, it must be proved, and if the witnesses are dead, and their handwriting proved, it will be presumed that the attestation was so made until the contrary be proved. (Com. Rep. 530; Willis, 1.) So by 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 1, expressly dispenses with any particular form of

attestation.

Marriage and the birth of children is an absolute revocation of a will made before marriage, if on such marriage no provision is made for expected issue.

The late act, 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 18, expressly provides for the future, that "every will made by a man or woman shall be revoked by his or her marriage, (except a will made in exercise of a power of appointment) when the real or personal estate thereby appointed would not, in default of such appointment, pass to his or her heir, customary heir, executor, or administrator, or the person entitled to his or her next of kin under the statute of distributions."

The statute further provides, by s. 19, "that no will shall be revoked by any presumption of an intention on the ground of any alteration in

circumstances.

appointment by the parson is sufficient. If a clerk misconduct himself in his office, he may be deprived by the same authority that appointed him to the office. (1 Ventr. 148; 1 Burr. 367; 8 T. R. 209.) But though the minister may have a power of removing him on good and sufficient cause, he can never be the sole judge, and remove him ad libitum, without being subject to the control of the court. (R. v. Warren, Cowp. 370.) A proceeding against a parish clerk for deprivation ought to be plenary and by articles. (Barton v. Ashton and Gray, Lee's R. i. p. 350.) Articles against a parish clerk for immoral conduct and neglect of duty, admitted. (Ibid, 533.) If an incumbent proceed to deprive a parish clerk appointed by himself, he must be careful to proceed regularly. Thus he should summon him to answer the charge made against him. (3 Dowl. 327, and R. v. Gaskin, 8 T. R. 209.) Affidavits stating that a clerk has been guilty of divers acts of intoxication, without specifying a single instance, or without stating that he was unable, through intoxication, to discharge his duties, were held insufficient to justify a removal, and a mandamus to restore was granted. (R. v. Neale, 4 Nev. and Mann.) A parish clerk may sue in a court Christian for his fees, which are called largitiones charitiva. (2 Roll. Rep. 71; Vin. Abr. "Parish Clerk," 4.) It has been said that the course for the clerk to take would be to bring his action on the case against the churchwardens, for neglecting to make a rate and levying it; or if it had been levied, that they had not paid it. (3 Salk. 87; 6 Mod. 252.)

COMMISSARY, is he that is limited by the bishop to some certain place of the diocese to assist him, and in most cases hath the authority of official principal and vicar general within his limits. As the authority of commissaries is restrained to some certain part of the diocese, so is it also restrained to some certain case of jurisdiction, limited unto them by the bishop. (Mant, xx.)

CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY. The statutes that mention the degrees within which marriage is prohibited, and the table of degrees, set forth by authority in 1563, required by the Cunon xcix. to be hung up in churches, and frequently annexed to the larger edition of the book of Common Prayer, are founded upon the prohibitions recorded in the xviiith chapter of Leviticus.

CONSTITUTIONS, (Ecclesiastical,) were drawn up by the convocation in the province of Canterbury, and licensed by the king, in the reign of James, A.D. 1603. (Grant.)

CORPSE, (Disinterment of.) A corpse once buried cannot legally be taken up to be deposited in another place, without a license from the ordinary. (Gibs. 454.) But in the case of a violent death, the coroner may order the body to be disinterred, if it has been buried before he has had an opportunity of taking a view for the purposes of his inquest. (See also Lynn's Case, 2 T. R. 733.)

CORPSE. (Taking into Church,) is discretionary with the minister, but the service must be read in either case. The omission of any part

is a dereliction of duty.

CURATE, in its ordinary sense, signifies a clerk not instituted to the cure of souls, but exercising the spiritual office under the rector or vicar. (1 H. Bl. 424.) Every curate is to quit his curacy, (s. 95), and the

house of residence, (s. 96), if residing in it, upon a benefice becoming vacant, upon receiving six weeks' notice, given within six months of the new incumbent's admission, collation, institution, or license. (1 & 2 Vict. c. 106.) The curates of district churches and district chapelries are not dismissible, nor is their license rendered void by the avoidance of the church of the parish or district parish in which such chapel is situated, unless the same be revoked by the bishop, under hand and seal; but such license shall continue in force notwithstanding such avoidance, any statute, law, canon, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. (1 & 2 Vict. c. 107, s. 13.) Curates overholding after notice, to forfeit 40s. for every day of wrongful possession, after service of such notice, which may be recovered by action of debt. (1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 96, 117.) A license is not necessary for a curate rendering occasional assistance, but is required for every one engaged to take charge of a parish for a continued time. (Gates v. Chambers, Add. R. ii. p. 189, &c.)

CUSTOM, to be valid, must have existed immemorially, i. e., as taken in law, from the beginning of the reign of Richard I.; consequently if it can be shewn that the custom commenced at any period since, or did not exist before that period, it is invalid. But a regular usage for twenty years, unexplained and uncontradicted, is sufficient to warrant a jury in finding an immemorial custom. (Rex v. Joliffe, 2 Barn. and Cres. 54; 3 Dowl. and Ryl. 240; 2 Saund. 175, a. d. Peacke's Evid. 336.) A custom must be continuous, acquiesced in, reasonable, (Co. Copyh. s. 33), compulsory, and consistent. (1 Bla. Com. 77.)

CURACY, (Augmented,) stands, in respect to sequestrations, on the same footing as presentative livings. (Prout v. Cresswell, Lee's R. i. p. 36; Leire v. Harris. Ibid, p. 156.)

DEAN, is continually styled in ecclesiastical records, "Archi-presbyter," and is next to the bishop in rank, by right of his office and constitution. (Parham v. Templar, Phill. R. iii. p. 242.) The word dean comes from the Latin decanus, and was first used among the soldiers, ten of whom made a party, that lodged together in one tent, or were quartered together in one place. After the institution of monks, the name was adopted among them to signify a chief monk in a fraternity, who was to superintend his brethren and keep them in good order. (Mant, xxv. n. o.)

DEAN AND CHAPTER. Their jurisdiction is superior to that of an archdeacon. In some respects they have a control over the bishop. They are the council of the bishop, must consent to every grant of the bishop, in order legally to bind his successors. (Parham v. Templar, ut supra, p. 242, 243.

DIVINE SERVICE. Reading prayers, or a sermon, in a private family, is not performing divine service. (Trebec v. Keith, Atkyn. ii. p. 513.) EPITAPHS. It is much to be regretted that so little attention is paid to them. A very useful work, containing a great variety of well selected portions, suitable to all occasions, has been recently published under the title of "A General Volume of Epitaphs, original and selected, with a large selection of striking and appropriate texts of Scripture; and an historical and moral essay on the subject, by a clergyman." Parker, West Strand. 5s.

J. W.

The canons were published in convocation, A. D. 1603, and issued, with his majesty's authority, under the great seal, being ratified by the king, for himself, his heirs, and successors. Not having been ratified by parliament, they do not proprio vigore bind the laity, (Middleton v. Crofts, 2 Atk. 605; Stra. 1056,) but all the clergy are bound by them, whenever the bishops shall see fit to enforce them, but not otherwise. (2 Atk. 158, 26, 605; 2 Salk. 673; 1 Salk. 134; Carth. 485; 1 Lev. 436.) The canons, in many instances, are only declaratory of the law, as what shall be its execution, and not always introductory of the offence. (Crompton v. Butler, Hagg. C. R. I. p. 464.) What is expressly required by the canons is not repealed by disuse; the court is to see whether it is necessary for the purposes of justice in the particular case. (Herbert v. Herbert, Phill. R. ii. p. 443.)

CANONS. "Private clergymen do not seem to be bound to what their superiors in the church do not seem to expect or require of them; or which at least they do forbear, by mutual consent, to enforce." "When

the ordinaries or other spiritual judges, whose business it is to enforce discipline and rule, do appear by a general and avowed neglect of putting the canons in force," they may be supposed "to agree and consent to their non-observance. (Bp. Mant.)

CHANCELS, SO called a cancellis, from the lattice work partition betwixt the choir and the body of the church, so framed as to separate the one from the other, but not to intercept the sight. (1 Burn. E. L. 342.) A grant by a lay impropriator of part of the chancel to A. and his heirs and assigns, is not valid in law. And it is inconsistent either with the duty of the ordinary or the rector, to alienate any part of the chancel. (Clifford v. Wicks, 1 Barn. and Ald. 498.)

CHANCELS. (Greater or lesser.) It is a groundless notion with impropriators, that they have the same right in the great chancel which a nobleman has in a lesser. These lesser chancels are supposed to have been erected for the sole use of these noble persons. Whereas the great chancels are for the use of clergy and people. (Clifford v. Wicks, ut supra.)

CHANCELS. (Burying in.) Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, seems to have been the first to sanction vaults in chancels, and under the very altars, when he had rebuilt the church at Canterbury in the year 1075. (Ken. Par. Ant. 592.)

CHAPELS, Proprietary, are anomalies unknown to the constitution, and to the ecclesiastical establishment of the Church of England, and can possess no parochial rights. (Moysey v. Hillcoat, Hagg. R. ii. p. 46.) Prima facie all parochial duties are committed to and imposed upon the parish incumbent, and all fees and emoluments arising therefrom belong to him; and such right can only be granted to a chapel, or its officiating minister, by composition with the patron, incumbent, and ordinary: quare, whether not also with a composition to future incumbents. (Ibid. p. 48.)

CHAPEL, of Ease, or one built for the ease of the parishioners who dwell too far from the church, and is served by a curate, provided at the charge of the incumbent. (Line v. Harris, Lees Rep. i. p. 156.) Of common right the incumbent has the nomination of a minister to a chapel of ease within his parish. (Ibid. p. 146.) Such chapel cannot