
    
      John Bateman vs. John Mariner and wife
    
    
      From Edenton District.
    
    presencel>y one witw os Testator in ^mVdenvíy DGlOVCfl 5 ami has hlsprcsonco witness- — 01" Testator then ack-nowiedged the execution of will iii pro-sence of nesses*'-lut execu-' tidn and pass ami" nal estate.
    The testator signed this will'and it was attested in Ins hy jLevi Bateman. The testator there inserted date and the words * my clearly beloved-.” he then caus» to he attested in his presence by Woolsey Hathaway, nn^ afterwards acknowledged ia the presence of both of the witnesses, that it was his act and deed for the uses therein mentioned, ft was submitted to the bup reme Court decide whether this Will was good to pass the real as -w('^ as 0*® personal estate of the testator.
   Locke —Judge

delivered the opinion of the court. — This Will being signed by the testator in the presence of one witness and afterwards acknowledged in the-presence of the other and finally acknowledged in the presence of both ^ ^ hc.s been executed with due solemnity and in a fair and ... manner: And although (he testator in the interval between the attestation of the first and second .witness, in» scited the words “ dearly beloved” and also the date to the yei: Ihis.addition being wholly .immaterial, produces no alteration therein. The court is therefore of opinion that Will lists been well , executed and is sufficient to pass Uto rea! and personal estate therein mentioned,  