case parker versus ash of the eighth month in court Lord keeper how the  spiritual court proceed where there be erasure in a will and the executrix  submit to have the will prove as though no such erasure have be therein the  bill be for payment of a legacy give to the plaintiff by the will of a b in  which will many legacy and among other the plaintiff legacy be erase and such  erasure be suppose to have be do by the testator in his lifetime but when the  will come to be prove and this matter contest in the spiritual court the  executrix submit that the will shall be prove as if no such erasure have be  make and a instrument purport her consent to this matter be annex to the  will This instrument be a declaration by the executrix register in the  ecclesiastical court before she be admit to prove the will that she accept of  the say will and executorship Chargeable with the legacy demand by the  plaintiff and that she will perform and discharge the say will as by law she  ought to have do in case the say word and legacy have not be there raze out  and it be declare by the decree that this declaration affix to the probate of  the will ought to be accept and take as part of the will of the testator and  that the legacy claim by the plaintiff ought to be pay accord Reg lib b fol  Lord keeper I take the executrix to be conclude by this consent which prevent  the examination of the matter when it be fresh and it may be that she know  that the erasure can have be prove to have be make after the death of the  testator but say the usual course in such case be to have a sentence against  the erasure and then a probate grant with the word raze out insert therein  vide plume v beal p wms and case cite in not there master v master ibidem then  the length of time since the death of the testator and the staleness of the  demand be insist upon The demand be state to be above year old and this bill  be file against the executor of the executrix of the original testator under  who will the plaintiff claim and who have in her lifetime release the  defendant r l vide Fotherby v Hartbridge post vol but to this it be answer  that a legacy be not within the statute of limitation anon Freem pl and such  be the clear receive doctrine of the court and upon which the case on  presumption of payment of legacy have go and length of time be only a Vernon  chancery case presumption of payment anon Freem pl and such be the clear  receive doctrine of the court and upon which the case on presumption of  payment of legacy have go it be a presumption of fact in legal proceed that  claim the most solemnly establish upon the face of they will be presume to be  satisfy after a length of time Jones v Turberville Ves jun payment of legacy  presume after year and demand make but not proceed in ibidem Lewis v Lord  Teynham cite there but in this case the defendant do not pretend a  satisfaction but only contest the duty and there be this difference between  debt and legacy as to their antiquity legacy always appear upon the face of  the will and so a executor know it be a presumption of fact in legal proceed  that claim the most solemnly establish upon the face of they will be presume  to be satisfy after a length of time Jones v Turberville Ves jun payment of  legacy presume after year and demand make but not proceed in ibidem Lewis v  Lord Teynham cite there what he ought to pay without be ask or tell but for  debt and other dormant demand against which he can provide without notice  there the statute have reason to limit the time the Lord keeper decree the  legacy against the defendant who be executor of the executrix and the first  executrix have deliver over great part of the asset to the defendant in her  lifetime a account have be afterward state betwixt they and a release give  however it be direct that a account shall be take of the whole asset and that  what the defendant have receive he be to answer out of his own estate and that  what be waste by the first executrix the defendant be to answer as far as he  have receive asset with interest from the exhibit the bill Reg lib b fol  Vernon chancery case er p