472 RANDALL v. HODGES.—3 BLAND.

bunal; or even sent abroad to be exhibited to witnesses who can
testify respecting it, but who cannot be brought before the Court
to whom the question of its authenticity is to be submitted. Fred-
erick v. Aynscombe, 1 Atk. 627; Morse v. Roach, 1 Dick. 65; S. C.
2 Straw. 961; Williams v. Flayer, Amb. 343; Lake v. Causfield, 3
Bro. C. C. 263; Forder v. Wade, 4 Bro. C. C. 476; Carrington v.
Payne, 5 Ves. 411; Rodson v. ——, 6 Ves. 135; .Ford v. ——, 6 Ves.
802.

In Maryland also, it is the duty of the executor to have the will
proved; and, for that purpose, to have it lodged with the register
of wills of the proper county. But now, as under the Provincial
Government, there seems to have been but one form of probate,
and that is, by the oath of the executor, and also by the testimony
of witnesses; and not merely in the one or the other of those forms
as in England. Dep. Com. Guide, 72. Alter the probate has been
thus made here, the will is recorded; and the original will is, in
all cases, held for sate custody by the register, as is done by the
English Ecclesiastical Court. This practice or common law of
Maryland by which * wills aie required to be recorded, has
481 been recognized and affirmed by positive legislative enact-
ments. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 2, and sub-ch. 15, s. 9; Carroll's
Lessee v. Llewellin, 1 H. & McH. 162; Smith's Lessee v. Steele, 1 H.
& McH. 419; Colons' Lessee v. Nicols, l H. & J. 400; Hall v. Git-
tings, 2 H. & J. 121. But it appears, that those originals have
been very carelessly preserved; for, in some of the counties there
are long spaces of time within which, under the Provincial Govern-
ment and since, there are no original wills to be found; although
the records of them in the same offices are in a good state of pre-
servation.

It seems, that in Scotland and in Ireland also, the original will
itself, when proved, is retained in the office of the Court in which
it has been authenticated in regard to movables; and, therefore,
if the same will makes any disposition of property in England, it
may be proved in the Ecclesiastical Court there by producing a
copy only. Toller Execu. 71; Robertson on Succession, 281.

But the mere copy of a will made and deposited among the
records of a Court of another State is not here deemed sufficient
to warrant a probate, and the granting of letters testamentary
upon ic. Ratrie v. Wheeler, 6 H. & J. 94; Armstrong v. Lear, 12
Wheat. 169. And, although it is declared by our law, that the
Orphans' Court may take the probate or cause to be proved any
last will or testament, although the same concern the title of lands;
1715, ch. 39, s. 2, and 29; yet such a probate has been held to be
no more than prima facie evidence; and, consequently, if the
validity of the will be denied, it must be regularly established
here, as in England, according to law. Carroll's Lessee v. Llewel-
lin, 1 H. & McH. 162; Belt v. Belt, 1 H. & McH. 409; Collins v.