The paper propounded as the will of this decedent was executed by him in substantial compliance with the formalities prescribed bylaw. He made to each of the attesting witnesses sufficient acknowledgement of Ms signature, and Ms publication of the disputed paper as his will is proved to my satisfaction. It is an unimportant circumstance that tMs acknowledgement and publication were made to the witnesses on different occasions, and when they were apart from each other (Hoysradt v. Kingman, 22 N. Y., 372).
The contestant claims that the will here propounded was revoked by another instrument, executed three years later. The evidence shows that such an instrument was prepared, and that it was executed in the presence of one witness as a testamentary paper. And that is all.
How the circumstances under wMch a wiH once duly executed can be revoked are distinctly specified by the Eevised Statutes (R. S., part 8, ch. 6, tit. 1, § 42). “Ho will in writing,” says that section, “except in
The excepted cases are not such as can be claimed to have any application to the case at bar.
A decree may be entered admitting to probate the will of 1876.