
    Edenton,
    April Term, 1805.
    
      Rhea versus Norman's executors.
    
    A WILL, dated the 12th of February, 1804, had been proved*, and another was offered for probate, dated the 14th of the same month. On the trial it appeared, one witness subscribed, and then the testator inserted the word February, and seem? ingly in the place of another word ; after, which the witness attested.
   Taylor, Judge,

There ought to be an attestation by two witnesses of every part of a will of land; and therefore this, will, if, good at all, can only be so for the personalty.

I do not mean to question the correctness of this decision, but to excite enquiry. ' Is the date of a will more essential than the date of a deed ? If not, the will as to the lands, will be considered as a will from the time of its execution ; to be ascertain-, cd by the evidence, in. like manner, as a deed shall take effect from the time of delivery; though it has no date, or a false or impossible date, or if.it delivered before or after the date : vide Co. Litt. 6. a. 2 Rep. 5. a. 3 Leonard, 100. C. D. Fait. B. 3. If th.e date be unessential, then the act of Assembly only requires. tbe attestation of two to those parts of the will which are material. Besides, what is attestation ¶ Certainly an undertaking- to prove ihat which passes in his presence ; and then he is as much a witness to the word February being used by the testator to express the time of execution as to the other parts of the will. — > Judge Taylor granted a new trial in this case, but upon what ground, the Reporter does not know, having not been present.  