英语翻译In the present case,the dispute is as to whether Mr Wang

英语翻译
In the present case,the dispute is as to whether Mr Wang executed the 1990 Will.There is no dispute as to Mr Wang’s testamentary capacity nor as to whether he knew and approved of the contents of that will.However,as appears in what follows,certain authorities on the requirement of knowledge and approval were misapplied in the courts below.
Where one is concerned with non-Chinese wills,proof of “due execution” requires proof that the will was signed by the testator and that the statutory requirements for the formal validity of wills were complied with.Thus,a challenge to due execution might involve not only the question whether the testator had in fact signed the will,but also whether he did so in the joint presence of the attesting witnesses or whether those witnesses had each signed in his presence.But as we have seen,by virtue of s 5(2),“due execution” in respect of eligible Chinese wills (and in the present case) is established simply by showing “execution” or the fact of signature of the testator.There is accordingly in our case effectively no difference between “due execution” and “execution”.
If someone wishes to dispute the validity of a will on the grounds that there is want of due execution,or of testamentary capacity,or of the requisite knowledge and approval,that person bears an evidential burden of putting the relevant ground of challenge in issue.If the evidence adduced by him or otherwise arising in the case is of a sufficient cogency to raise such an issue,the court,when assessing the evidence as a whole at the end of the case,decides whether the proponent of the will has discharged the persuasive burden in relation to the relevant fact in issue on the balance of probabilities.
On the other hand,where a person seeks to challenge a will on the grounds that the testator was induced to make the will by fraud or by undue influence,such person bears the persuasive burden of establishing the fraud or undue influence:Boyse v Rossborough (1857) 6 HLC 2; Craig v Lamoureux [1920] AC 349 (PC).These pleas presuppose execution of the will by the testator.The allegation is that such execution was procured by acts of fraud or undue influence performed by others:Tyrrell v Painton [1894] P 151 at 157; C H Sherrin et al,Williams on Wills (Butterworths,8th Ed) §5.9.
The person propounding the will has no burden of disproving fraud or undue influence,although he is obviously likely in practice to adduce whatever evidence may be available to counter those allegations.Where those issues are raised (assuming that the court is satisfied as to due execution,testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval),the court asks itself at the end of the day whether,having regard to all the evidence adduced,the person opposing the grant has satisfied the court that it is more likely than not that the testator was induced to make the will by fraud or undue influence,as the case may be.

在目前的情况下,争议是否王先生执行1990年的遗嘱.没有争议、遗嘱给王先生的能力也不像他是否知道和批准的内容会有希望.然而,当出现在以下,某些机关批准的要求是被错误地应用知识和在法庭上的下面.
在那里每个人都关心的遗嘱,证明非“由于执行”的要求,证明其是将立遗嘱人签署了撤销法定要求的形式有效性的遗嘱被执行.因此,由于执行,这是一个挑战,不仅可能会涉及的问题是立遗嘱人事实上已经签署了意志,而且也不管他是否联合的存在是否出具的见证人或者签署那些目击者每个人也都在他面前.但是正如我们所见,由于s 5(2)执行”,“由于在尊重的符合条件的中国遗嘱(和现在的情况),建立了通过展示“执行”的简单的事实,或立遗嘱人签名.在我们的例子有相应的有效执行”由于没有区别”和“执行”.
如果有人希望争议遗嘱的有效性的理由是有希望的,或者由于遗嘱执行的能力,或必要的知识和批准,那人诞生一个的举证责任有关的土地,将挑战的问题.由他的,只要有证据不一致或其他产生的一个充分说服力的案例是提高这样一个问题,法庭,在评价证据作为一个整体,在结束的情况下,决定的建议者,会产生有说服力的负担相对于有关事实问题的天平上概率.
另一方面,在那里一个人寻求挑战的理由,有一个将遗嘱人被劝使将以欺骗或者由不良影响,这样的人负有举证责任的确立有说服力:Boyse欺诈或不良影响v Rossborough(1857年)6 HLC 2,克雷格·v Lamoureux[1920年]AC 349(PC).这些请预设的执行将由遗嘱人签名.该指控是,这样的行为是由执行上钢进行欺骗或其他不良影响Tyrrell v Painton:[1894年]P 151在157名;C H Sherrin学组,威廉姆斯在遗嘱(中国政法大学出版社,第8版)§5.9%.
人的意志没有负担终极虚设的逻辑性的欺诈或不良影响,尽管他显然很可能举出证据,无论在实践中可能有效对抗那些指控.在这些问题上复活(假设的心就像饱足的法院是由于执行、遗嘱的能力和知识和批准),法庭要求本身在一天结束的时候,是否考虑到所有的证据不一致了,人反对格兰特已经满足了法院,它更有可能比不立遗嘱人被劝使将以欺骗或者不良影响,可以根据具体情况.