“A few months ago I saw a will in which an estate of one million dollars was disposed of: the testator under the will divided the estate into ten parts, but overlooked the disposition of one of these parts; the omitted part passed under the general laws of inheritance, doubtless contrary to the wishes of the testator. “There came under my observation not long ago a will drawn in Michigan: the testator owned property in Michigan and also in Missouri and South Carolina. The will had but two witnesses; it was effective in Michigan and Missouri, but in South Carolina, where three witnesses are required, it was inoperative. “Within the last few days, I examined the will of one of our most gifted and eloquent United States senators, now deceased; an ample provision for his wife was followed by this clause: ‘The acceptance by my wife of the provisions for her benefit, contained in this will, shall bar all claim by her for dower in any real estate heretofore or hereafter conveyed by me to any one.’ This attempted exclusion of the wife’s dower was well-nigh meaningless: his intent was to preclude her right of dower in any real estate owned by him at the time of his death; but he said ‘conveyed by me to any one’; all real estate possessed by him at the time of his death was subject to dower and not excluded, because it had not been conveyed. “A will was lately presented to me where the testator left a large estate,--one-third to his wife, one-third to a son, and one-third to a grandson; the wife predeceased the testator. The question arose as to what became of the one-third given to the wife. “Generally speaking, under a bequest or devise to a ‘child, grandchild or other relative,’ the property passes to the lineal descendants of these, in the event the legatee or devisee dies before the testator; but it is otherwise as to all other persons: as to them, the devise or gift lapses; even the children of stepchildren would not take under these conditions. “It is said ‘a will has no brother,’ meaning that no two are alike. The general rules of construction are too numerous and complex for a discussion here. Technical words are presumed to be used in their technical sense, unless a clear intention to use them in another is apparent from the context. Our courts are always busy in an endeavor to ascertain the intentions of testators. The truth is, few men write accurately and precisely. The proper use and selection of words in the construction of wills is a very grave duty. “A general outline of the framework of a will may be stated as follows: “(_a_) A will should revoke all former wills; if this is not done, the last will may be taken in connection with others. If the testator is unmarried, he should state that fact. His statement does not make it true, but it may serve a very excellent purpose in thwarting the claims of designing persons.