Dear Rhodri Achwr,
I already had worked out the point about the Wills Act and written to Edward
before I saw your message.
----- Original Message -----
From: "yr achwr" <achwr(a)fsmail.net>
To: "Edward Llewellyn-Jones" <edwardllansamlet(a)gmail.com>; "Richard
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Dyfed] Probate puzzle
We appear to be getting somewhere at last.
The Wills Act 1837 debars a Witness to a Will from also being a
beneficiary, although he can act as the Executor.
This might provide the answer.
Richard might care to comment further.
Message Received: May 17 2013, 02:09 PM
From: "Edward Llewellyn-Jones" <edwardllansamlet(a)gmail.com>
To: "Richard Rose" <rrose(a)otterquillbooks.com>
Subject: Re: [Dyfed] Probate puzzle
Thanks for your thoughts or speculation even! You may well be correct
the clue may lie in the word 'administration' but if it does then I am at
loss to see why.
The Will is straightforward. It starts with the usual requests for funeral
expenses and debts to be paid; then the apportioning of his property [no
details as to what it might have been] to his two sisters in equal part;
then gifts to his 'neavy' [nephew] of his watch, seal and a word I can't
make out but looks like 'hoath' or 'thoad'. He names his nephew
signs it before two witnesses, his brother-in-law and same nephew, who
sign. It was proved at London on the 9th March 1847 before a judge by his
nephew having sworn by Commission to duly administer. And that is it!
It is one of the shortest Wills I have ever come across and lacking in
detail. There is plenty of speculation I can indulge in, and do so
privately, as the whole set of circumstances are odd. In the 1841 Census
he is living on his own means while his mother and sister, who live in the
same house are described as paupers. His nephew, also in the same house,
has no descriptor as to employment or such. That is why I threw myself on
the kindness and knowledge of members of the list to offer suggestions in
the hope there might be an answer. But it may well be that this is one
that can't be solved.
Again, many thanks
On 17 May 2013 13:02, Richard Rose <rrose(a)otterquillbooks.com> wrote:
> Dear Edward,
> Is there perhaps a clue in your use of the word 'Administration' rather
> than 'Probate'? Is there any hint of any legal formalities not
> by the testator in his own lifetime or by someone else relating to the
> property which he left? A partial intestacy or something like that?
> But I forget myself; this is speculation and searching without clues and
> gather that WE are not prepared to do this.
> Best wishes,
> Richard Rose
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Llewellyn-Jones" <
> To: <s.n.carter(a)btinternet.com>
> Cc: <dyfed(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:11 AM
> Subject: [Dyfed] Probate puzzle
> Hi Simon,
>> Thanks for your reply. Yes it is that Will and there is nothing to
>> why it was proved in London. There is mention of property
>> watch and a seal and something that looks like 'hoath'. The Executor,
>> nephew, was granted administration. As far as I know the property
>> consisted in a few acres - about 15. These went to his two sisters.
>> are no more details. The Will is fifteen lines long; and the Probate
>> just three lines. There is no mention of holding property based on a
>> or freehold or anything - it simply says property.
>> Dyfed list REVISED resources http://home.clara.net/**
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> DYFED-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Dyfed list REVISED resources http://home.clara.net/daibevan/DyfedML.html
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
DYFED-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message