Roberts

The problem presented by this appeal is the interpretation to be given a home-made will as affected by two do-it-yourself codicils. In its order deter *8 mining heirship the trial court decreed that the widow of the testator, the appellant, was bequeathed property constituting only a small part of the estate; that the rest should be divided equally among the five children of testator and a former, deceased, wife. We are reversing the order to enable the trial court to correct it in one particular.

To understand the dispute, we should have certain provisions of the will and parts of the codicils before us. These suffice: “It is my desire that I be buried beside my beloved wife Ima Chillson Roberts. . . .

To the will, witnessed April 3, 1954, the testator fashioned a codicil in his own handwriting beginning: “Oct. 30th 1956 ... I Arch. W. Roberts . . . desire to make a codicil to my will . . . .” His name appears nowhere else in this codicil, but this was sufficient. (Estate of Glass (1958), 165 Cal.App.2d 380, 384 [ 331 P.2d 1045, 1048 ], which cited *9 the case of Estate of Bloch (1952), 39 Cal.2d 570, 572-573 [ 248 P.2d 21, 23 ], with its many citations.) In the codicil this…