ROSE D SOUZA Vs. JOSEPH JOAQUIM SERPES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The state of facts in which this appeal is brought is described in the judgment of the lower Court and need not be recapitulated. Only three points are taken on behalf of the appellants, who are the original plaintiffs, and of these three points only one is, I think, such as to occasion any difficulty.

(2.) The first objection raised for the appellants was that probate of the will of Joseph had not been established. But that objection is, in my opinion, disposed of by Exh. 25, an extract from a vernacular register for the 3 ear 1877, That extract shows that application for probate was made to the Court, and that the Court granted what is translated from the vernacular as a " certificate". Seeing that the application was for probate, and that the English word " certificate " is habitually used in the vernacular languages as equivalent to " probate", I have no doubt that the probate of Joseph s will in this case is sufficiently proved.

(3.) As to the second point that the property in suit was not identified as the property referred to in the will of Joseph, the answer is that that point cannot be taken now. No issue was raised upon it in the trial Court, and, so far as the record shows, it appears that until the evidence in the case was completed, the defendants had no notice that they would have to meet any such objection.