Hi all, I've recently come across a Will for a chap called John Lucas from 1700. It caught my eye because one of the witness was a Thomas Pottrell. The surname Lucas pops up in another Will for Thomas Pottrell from the 1760's. The problem I have is that in 1700, Thomas would have only been around 13. Would that have been old enough to act as a Witness? Tony

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:31:06 +0100 Tony Pottrell <editor@pyroport.com> wrote: Hello Tony, > The problem I have is that in 1700, Thomas would have only been around > 13. Would that have been old enough to act as a Witness? Yes. The criterion for being a witness is that the person understand what they're witnessing; Be it marriage, will, or whatever. I know of people with marriage witnesses as young as seven in their ancestry. I'm not 100% certain, but suspect that the only reason we don't see young witnesses to wills these days is due to the possibility of some legal challenge, whereby only lawyers would win. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Going round on the Circle Line trying to find a way out Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999

He himself is almost old enough to marry, the legal age for boys being only 14 at that time, so yes, he would have been old enough provided he understood what it was he was witnessing. Geo. Hello Tony, > The problem I have is that in 1700, Thomas would have only been around > 13. Would that have been old enough to act as a Witness?