case henley versus fillip July rule of evidence the same in law and equity  where a witness be dead who attest a deed you must prove he to be so where a  attest witness have live abroad la strict proof of his death be require  otherwise where he have live constant in England if a trustee mere to have a  point relate to his private interest determine bring the beneficiary and trust  before the court he shall pay the whole cost of the suit the rule of evidence  in this court as to witness be exact the same as at law see villiers v  villiers post if witness be dead who have attest a deed it be not sufficient  that you prove the handwriting but you must likewise show they be dead where a  person have live abroad for some year after attest a deed there must be a  strict proof of his death otherwise where the witness have live constant in  England from the time of his subscribe his name to the day of his death there  a slight evidence of his death be sufficient especial where the person who  prove his hand know he intimate and swear that he believe he dead in such a  case the court will not expect such nicety as that a certificate of his  funeral shall be produce where a trustee be mere a trustee and there be any  act to be do by he it be very commendable in he to be cautious but where he  have a private interest of his own separate and independent from the trust and  oblige beneficiary and trust to come into this court mere to have the point  relate to his private interest determine at the expense of the trust this be  such a vexatious behaviour in he that for example sake he will be decree to  pay the whole cost of the suit atkins though a feme covert have a power of  dispose of a sum of money or any other thing by a write purport to be a will  yet after the wife death the prove it in the spiritual court will not give it  the authority of a will but it will be still consider as a instrument only or  a appointment of such sum or other thing in pursuance of the power and before  it be prove in the commons as a testamentary conveyance the husband ought to  be examine there as to his consent nor till then will it have the effect and  operation of a will see Ross v ewer post vol atkins er p