Plea-Embarrassing Matter-R. S. C., 1883, Ord. XIX. r. 27. See p. 389 et seq.

Appeals from orders made in chambers are to be subject to the same rules in the Probate Division as in the Chancery Division, and will not be entertained unless the judge gives leave to appeal direct, or certifies that he does not require to hear further argument.

A plaintiff propounded a will. The defendant counter-claimed, propounding a later will. The plaintiff replied, inter alia, that the testatrix was not of sound mind when she executed the later will, and that, if she did duly execute it when of sound mind, she duly revoked it by a still later will when she was in a similar state of mind:-Held by the Court, and on appeal, that this reply was not embarrassing and might stand. Rigg v. Hughes, 9 P. D. 68.

Incapacity-Particulars. See p. 392.

Particulars of unsoundness of mind are not ordered. A plea which depends upon the whole life and conduct of a man cannot be made the subject of particulars. Hankinson v. Barringham, 9 P. D. 62.

Statement of Claim. See p. 396 et seq.

A claim to pronounce against the validity of the will of a married woman who had obtained a protection order, and a counter-claim to discharge the protection order, may be included in the same action. Mudge v. Adams, 6 P. D. 54.

Compromise. See p. 406.

In an action in the Probate Division, T. and S. propounded an earlier, and P. a later will. The action was compromised, and by consent a verdict and judgment were taken for establishing the earlier will. Subsequently P. discovered that the earlier will was a forgery, and in an action in the Chancery Division, to which T. and S. were parties, obtained the verdict of a jury to that effect, and judgment that the compromise should be set aside. In another action in the Probate Division for revocation of the probate of the earlier will:-Held, affirming the President's decision, that T. and S. were estopped from denying the forgery.

Semble, a Court of the Chancery Division has no jurisdiction to revoke the probate of a will. Priestman v. Thomas, 9 P. D. 210.

Trial-Mode of. See p. 424 et seq.

A plaintiff gave notice of trial by jury, the defendant agreed, and the heir-at-law did not oppose. The jury were discharged twice. The judge then, on summons for special direction by the defendant, ordered that it should be heard without a jury:-Held, on appeal, that as the heir-atlaw did not apply for a jury, the judge could in his discretion order trial without a jury. C. P. A., 1857, s. 35; J. A., General Orders XXXVI. rr. 3 and 26, cited. Burgoine v. Mordaff, 8 P. D. 205.

Where an order is subject to appeal, the Court of Appeal will not interfere with the discretion of the judge, except in a strong case, on the ground that his discretion has been wrongly exercised. Burgoine v. Mordaff, 8 P. D. 205.

Proof in Solemn Form-Costs. See p. 467 et seq.

The rule and practice by which a party may compel proof of a will in solemn form without liability for costs do not extend to a residuary legatee under a prior will. Hockley v. Wyatt, 7 P. D. 239.

Since the Supreme Court Orders and Rules, 1883, have been published, there have been additions to them, entitled as follows:

Rules of the Supreme Court, Ord. XXXVII. rr. 39 to 50. Examiners
of the Court, 4th February, 1884, price 1d.

Rules of the Supreme Court, October, 1884, price 1d.
Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, price 3d.

Supreme Court Funds Rules, 1884, price 6d.

Order as to Fees, Percentages, &c., July, 1884, price 3d.

As the Rules and Orders generally are subject to change, these additions are not included here, but they can be obtained from any Law Publishers at the prices mentioned.

The Law of Probate.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

diction.

THE Probate Division exercises "the voluntary and con- Probate juris. tentious jurisdiction and authority in relation to the granting or revoking probate of wills and letters of administration of the effects of deceased persons," and determines "all questions relating to matters and causes testamentary,' except those relating to legacies and the distribution of residues.1

courts.

There is yet another court which sits as a probate court, County to try cases of a lower scale. In suits where the deceased's estate, the will or right of administration of which is disputed, is of less than 2007. personalty and 3007. realty, or 5007. in all, but so reaching that total, the local county court is competent to try the action. The judge's power

1 See the Probate Act, 1857, ss. 4, 23; and J. A. 1873, s. 16.

2 C. P. A. 1858, s. 10, "Where it appears by affidavit to the satisfaction of a registrar of the principal registry that the testator or intestate in respect of whose estate a grant or revocation of a grant of probate or letters of administration is applied for had at the time of his death his fixed place of abode in one of the districts specified in Schedule (A.) to the said Court of Probate Act, and that the personal estate in respect of which such probate or letters of administration are to be or have been granted, exclusive of what the deceased may have been possessed of or entitled to as a trustee, and not beneficially, but with

D.

out deducting anything on account
of the debts due and owing from
the deceased, was at the time of
his death under the value of 2001.,
and that the deceased at the time
of his death was not seised or en-
titled beneficially of or to any real
estate of the value of 3001. or up-
wards, the judge of the county
court having jurisdiction in the
place in which the deceased had at
the time of his or her death a fixed
place of abode shall have the con-
tentious jurisdiction and authority
of the Court of Probate in respect
of questions as to the grant and
revocation of probate of the will or
letters of administration of the
effects of such deceased person, in
case there be any contention in
relation thereto."

B

The Probate
Division.

Rules and orders.

District regis

tries.

in such probate actions is given in the sections below.1 A brief retrospect at the origin of probate jurisdiction, and of its gradual withdrawal from ecclesiastical control, may be gathered from page 3 of the earlier edition of this work and the case there cited.2

The Probate Division is a sub-division of the High Court of Justice, and its business is ordinarily dealt with by two judges, the president and another, assisted by four principal registrars and other officials.

The rules and orders applying to probate proceedings, in the absence of special rules, &c., to the contrary, and where they do not conflict with the several rules and orders applicable to all the divisions, are those in force under the Court of Probate Act of 1857.

The General Rules under the Judicature Acts, recently issued (1883), will be found to apply to nearly all probate questions in contentious business. In non-contentious, or common form, business the Probate Rules of 1862, as altered and amended from time to time under sect. 53 of the Probate Act of 1857, are still in force.

District registries are now of two kinds. The one is devoted to all proceedings before trial in ordinary common law actions, and possibly other matters, distinct from probate. The other, which is called the District Probate Registry, is devoted exclusively to common form, or non-contentious,

1 C. P. A. 1857, s. 56, "The judge of any county court before whom any disputed question shall be raised relating to matters and causes testamentary under this act shall, subject to the rules and orders under this act, have all the jurisdiction, power, and authority to decide the same and enforce judgment therein, and to enforce orders in relation thereto, as if the same had been an ordinary action in the county court."

C. P. A. 1858, s. 13, "The power and authority to make rules and

probate business. A list of probate districts and registries is given below.1

1 SCHEDULE (A)., C. P. A. 1857.

DISTRICTS and PLACES of DISTRICT REGISTRIES throughout ENGLAND and WALES.

East Riding ditto (b), including the City of
York and Ainsty

Carlisle.

Wakefield.

York.

County of Lancaster, except the Hundred of Lancaster.
Salford and West Derby and the City of Man-
chester.

City of Manchester and Hundred of Salford

Hundred of West Derby in Lancashire

County of Chester (c).

Counties of Carnarvon and Anglesea

Counties of Flint, Denbigh, and Merioneth

County of Derby

County of Nottingham (d)

Counties of Leicester and Rutland

County of Lincoln (e)

Counties of Salop and Montgomery

Manchester.

Liverpool.
Chester.

Bangor.

St. Asaph.
Derby.
Nottingham.
Leicester.

Lincoln.

Shrewsbury.

Northern Division of Northampton, and Counties Peterborough.

of Huntingdon and Cambridge (ƒ).

County of Norfolk (g)

Eastern Division of the County of Suffolk and
North Division of the County of Essex.
Western Division of the County of Suffolk......
County of Bedford and Southern Division of
Northamptonshire (h).
County of Warwick (i)
County of Stafford (k)

Counties of Radnor, Brecknock, and Hereford

(a) Including the towns and counties of Newcastle-on-Tyne and Berwick-upon-Tweed.

(b) Including the town and county of Kingston-on-Hull.

(e) Including the city of Chester. (d) Including the town of Nottingham.

(e) Including the city of Lincoln.

Norwich.
Ipswich.

Bury St. Edmunds.
Northampton.

Birmingham.
Lichfield.
Hereford.

(f) Including the University of Cambridge.

(g) Including the city of Norwich.

(1) Including the town of Northampton.

(i) Including the city of Coventry.

(4) Including the city of Lichfield.