arnold against earl prerogative court Trinity term June that a will make by a  minor of sixteen in favour of his guardian and schoolmaster substantiate by  evidence Thomas Newbee a minor age near sixteen year die that January he leave  a uncle Benjamin Newbee of the whole and two uncle William and Richard Arnold  of the halfblood his only next of kin on the death of his grandfather on that  January the minor choose lee George earl his schoolmaster at Deptford lee er p  with who he board and lodge his guardian on that December decease make a will  write by a attorney in which he give all his estate to Mr earl and mrs Allen  now earl wife but then his housekeeper in October he make another will all of  his own handwriting which be almost a transcript of the former by which earl  be make universal legatee and executor this second will be say to be make  because Allen the joint devisee be become wife to earl on that December he  make a three will write with his own hand which be almost a transcript of the  two former in which he make earl executor and universal legatee this last will  be say to be make because one of the subscribe witness to the second be dead  on the day the decease die earl take probate of this last will William Arnold  one of the uncle cite he to prove it by witness earl propound the will and  examine the two subscribe witness who be person of unblemished character they  swear that the decease read the will twice over to they declare his entire  approbation of it and say that it be all his own handwriting that he have no  regard for his uncle for they have show none to he and that he be resolve to  leave all he have to earl for he and his wife have be parent to he and that he  duly sign seal and publish the will in their presence and desire they to  attest it which they do in his presence and that decease be perfect in his  sense Arnold plead that the decease be influence by his schoolmaster by  cajollery at some time and threat and severity at other time to make the will  contrary to his inclination he examine lee several witness to prove fraud and  imposition but most of they prove direct the contrary in so much that the  counsel for Arnold confess that the will be sufficient prove with respect to  the evidence but that from the circumstance of the case fraud must be presume  and that the minor be not of legal age for make of a will for personal estate  for that by law he ought to be seventeen or eighteen year of age judgment sir  George lee but I be of opinion that by law a male may make his will for  personal estate at fourteen Godolph l black Com and a female at twelve the age  at which by law they be capable of marriage unless it appear they have not a  capacity to understand the act they do the contrary of which appear in this  case and therefore the evidence in support of the will be strong and clear I  pronounce for the validity of the will but give no cost because the  circumstance of the case do prima fancy create strong suspicion which it  concern earl to clear up which I think he have do and the uncle live at a  distance and can not himself know the fact it do indeed appear that one Thomas  gull who be a witness in the cause and with who the uncle have agree that he  shall carry on the suit and who be to have a share of the estate if the will  shall be set aside have attempt to suborn some of the witness but as it do not  appear that William Arnold the uncle be privy thereof I think it not a  sufficient ground to charge he with cost