Will—Documents Testamentary in Character.—A document reading: “Fresno, July 2th, 1906. “I leave all the Busines I got To my wife Luiza Rosa Silva so that she got to pai all my deads and wages of the working men and all the Bills that ivoe to be in Count ect. “Frank V. Silva. “Antone J. Breves “Joe M. Silva.” is testamentary in character, and properly admitted to probate as the last will of the person executing the same.

Id.—Interpretation op Will—Intestacy to be Avoided.—A will is always to be interpreted so as to prevent intestacy if such interpretation is reasonably possible, and courts are very liberal in construing words in a will written by one unfamiliar with the English language or unused to technical terms.

Id.—Construction op Words “Leave” and “Busines.”—The use of the word “leave” in such document is sufficient evidence of testamentary intent, and the context shows that the word “busines” was used to describe whatever property the decedent possessed. The document, as a whole, sufficiently indicates the purpose of the testator to devise and bequeath to his wife all the property that he possessed and to require her to pay all his debts.

Id.—Execution of Will—Implied Bequest fob Attestation by Witnesses—Publication of Document as Will.—Due execution of the document as a will is sufficiently shown by evidence to the effect that the decedent stated that he wished to make a will, and that he asked one of the witnesses, both of whom were present, to write it; that such witness then wrote out the paper and handed it to the decedent; that decedent signed it and passed it back to the witness, who signed it as a witness, and that it was then handed to the other witness who also signed as a witness.

Id.—Publication and Bequest to Witness Indicated by Testator’s Conduct.—It is not necessary that the testator should have spoken words declaring the document to be his will, or that he should have expressly requested the witnesses to sign it as such. It is sufficient if this declaration and request are unmistakably indicated to the persons signing as witnesses by the testator’s conduct and actions although there is no declaration in words to that effect. It is not error, on a proceeding to revoke the probate of a will, to instruct the jury -to that effect.

Id.-—Conflict in Testimony of Subscribing Witnesses.—The law does not require that all the witnesses shall testify without conflict concerning the execution of the will, nor that at the time of probate both of the subscribing witnesses shall testify to all the facts necessary to constitute a statutory execution thereof.

Id.—Bevocation of Will—How must be Manifested.—Under section 1292 of the Civil Code, no written will can.be revoked except, (1) by a writing of the testator declaring such revocation, executed with the same formalities as a will; or, (2) “by being burnt, torn, canceled, obliterated, or destroyed, with the intent and for the purpose of revoking the same, by the testator himself, or by some person in his presence and by his direction.”

Id.—Insufficient Allegations to Show Bevocation—Unfulfilled Directions to Destroy.—Allegations in a petition to revoke the probate of a will- to the effect that the wife of the testatorz after the execution of the will, was requested by him to destroy it; that thereupon, in his presence, she did destroy an envelope, falsely declaring to him at the time that the will was inclosed therein; that the decedent then and until Ms death believed that the will was in the envelope, and was then destroyed by burning, when in fact some other paper was inclosed therein; that the will was not destroyed or burned, and that all this was done by the wife for the purpose of deceiving the testator and securing to herself the property left her by the will, do not show a revocation of the will, under section 1292 of the Civil Code.

Id.—Joint Union of Act and Intent to Destroy Essential.—In order •to constitute such revocation, there must be an actual burning, tearing, canceling, obliteration, or destruction, with the intention to revoke the document as a will. The mere intent unperformed to destroy or burn the will is not sufficient. There must be a joint union of act and intent in order to accomplish the revocation.

Id.—Fraudulent Prevention of Revocation—Relief for, how Obtained—Hot Ground for Revocation of Probate.—In a proceeding under the statute for the revocation of the probate of a will, the court cannot give relief for a fraudulent prevention of a revocation of the will. The statute does not provide for the presentation of such an issue as ground for revoking the admission to probate. If relief can be given at all for such a wrong, it must be sought by, suit in equity to declare the wrongdoer a trustee for the heirs with respect to the property received by such wrongdoer in virtue of the ■ will.

Id.—Signing of Will by Testator and Witnesses—Order Immaterial.—To effect the due execution of a will, it is immaterial whether the testator signed his name before or after the witnesses signed their names to the document executed as a will, if all the parties signed it at the same time, and as a part of the same transaction, The statute does not make the order of signing material.