Interpretation of will

[sugarfizzle]

I am currently looking at a Will and include some extra details to provide context.
All relating to Marylebone, Middlesex, England, unless otherwise stated. I am puzzled by the wording and meaning towards the end of the will, can anyone help?

Daniel Tuttle married Dorothy Lewis 16 Jan 1780, one known child Sarah Tuttle born 12 Mar 1780. Sarah Tuttle married Henry Brown 7 Jan 1808, St Luke, Chelsea.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/5111/40611_310992-00272/112892?backurl=https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/48799054/person/200172574086/facts#?imageId=40611_310992-00272

Will of Dorothy Tuttle, written 1803, died in 1806, will proved 30 Mar 1808.
Whole estate was left to daughter Sarah Tuttle, named as executrix. Executrix Sarah Brown, formerly Tuttle, wife of Henry Brown. Daniel Tuttle husband and widow of deceased first consenting [ ] probate.  Granted to the said executrix in January last (? 1807 or 1808) having been first voluntarily brought in and declared null and void/as by arts of Court appear.

Margaret

[horselydown86]

I think it is:  ...Consenting a probate...

The month of January last would be January 1808, being the last January before the date of probate.

It is:  ...(as by acts of Court appear)

For some reason, the will was proved twice - once in January 1808 and again in March 1808.

It's hard to know why without knowing more of the court proceedings.

However, it's possible that two wills were involved.

In the one proved in January, the testarix had:  ...the name and discription of Dorothy Tuttle formerly of East Street...(etc)...late of ffleet Street...(etc).

That's not the description in this will as registered.

The registered will doesn't include the standard wording regarding:  I hereby revoke and make void all previous wills...

So my best guess is that a second will has come to light following the probate of the first, and some Court action has ensued (this would include deposing the witnesses) to prove that it was the final & genuine will of the deceased.

[sugarfizzle]

Thank you for that, horselydown86.

Where does it say that the Will was proved in January? Ancestry have transcribed it as such, but I can't see it!

Looking more closely at the will, I can now read 'Daniel Tuttle, husband----- First consenting a probate of new said will'.
One thought I had was that Sarah may not have been Daniel's daughter. Or since he remarried very shortly after Dorothy's death, they may have been estranged.

But at that period, a women's estate was not usually hers to give away after her marriage.

Thank you for your input.
Regards Margaret

[sugarfizzle]

Apologies, it does give January (1808) as mentioned in my first post.
It is still a puzzling will, though.

Daniel died in 1813, leaving everything (except two rings to friends) to his new wife Ann. Ann in turn died in 1825, leaving various bequests to apparent friends, none to named family.

Margaret

[horselydown86]

Looking more closely at the will, I can now read 'Daniel Tuttle, husband----- First consenting a probate of new said will'.
One thought I had was that Sarah may not have been Daniel's daughter. Or since he remarried very shortly after Dorothy's death, they may have been estranged.
Regards Margaret

Note that the word you have as new above is actually the:

...of the said will by the name and discription...

Regarding Sarah, she is described as Sarah Tuttle Spinster in the third last line of the probate section, so she's almost certainly Daniel's daughter.

[sugarfizzle]

Thanks again, horselydown86.