In tbe case of Harrison v. Burgess, 1 Hawks’ Rep. 384, a script was offered for probate as the holograph will of one Irvine. The caveators objected, because it was attested by one subscribing witness. The Court over-ruled the objection with this short and emphatic remark: “The

will is certainly not worse by having one subscribing witness; it will certainly answer the purpose of more certainly showing that this is the paper which she (the witness) saw deposited in the bureau. Going beyond the requisition in respect of proofs, certainly cannot annul that which comes up to them.” This reason is certainly decisive of the present case, and shows that his Honor was right in admitting proof of the script as a holograph will. This renders the question as to the competency of one of the-subscribing witnesses, unnecessary, and makes it improper for us to express an opinion upon it.

Judgment affirmed.