
    M’Lean and Wife v. Ebenezer Barnard, Executor of Daniel Goodwin.
    The judge of probate a good witness to a will.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Probate in proving and approving tbe last will and testament of said Daniel Goodwin, for tbe following reasons —
    1st. Tbat tbe testator at tbe time of making and executing said last will and testament was not of sound disposing mind and memory.
    2d. Tbat tbe testator, at tbe same time be made and executed bis will, first made and executed a deed of a part of bis lands to Jonathan Avery; who is one of tbe three subscribing witnesses to said will, which land said Avery now bolds and claims by force of said deed — whereby said Avery became interested in the sanity of tbe testator, which is tbe point in question, and so said Avery was not nor is a competent witness to said will.
    3d. Tbat Jonathan Bull, Esq. one of tbe three subscribing witnesses to said will was at tbe time of subscribing, bis name as aforesaid and still is tbe judge of probate for tbe district in which said testator bved, and to whom belonged tbe probate of said will, and so said Bull was not nor is a competent witness to said will.
    , Tbe appellee denied tbe truth of tbe first and second exceptions, and demurred to tbe. third.
   Upon a full bearing of tbe evidence and the counsel, tbe court found tbat as to tbe first reason, said Daniel tbe testator, at tbe time of making and executing, said will was of sound disposing mind and memory. As to tbe second reason, tbe court found tbat said testator did not at the same time be made and executed bis will, first make and execute a deed to said Jonathan Avery, of a part of bis lands, etc. as tbe appellants in them reason have alleged. And as to tbe third reason, tbe court were of opinion tbat it was insufficient, and thereupon affirmed tbe judgment of tbe Court of Probate.  