Is Ex. 3 a validly executed document?

It would seem on this state of the law that it is necessary to hold that neither the document Ex. 3 nor the document Ex. 1 was proved to have been validly executed as required by the statute. The respondent, however, in answer to this says that the presumption of omnia rite esse acta applies with respect to these documents. The meaning of this maxim is explained by Lindley L.J. in Harris v. Knight (1890), 15 P.D. 170 at 179-80: "The maxim, 'omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta' is an expression in short form, of a reasonable probability, and of the propriety in point of law of acting on such probability. The maxim expresses an inference which may reasonably be drawn when an intention to do some formal act is established; when the evidence is consistent with that intention having been carried into effect in a proper way; but when the actual observance of all due formalities can only be inferred as a matter of probability. The maxim is not wanted where such observance is proved, nor has it any place where such observance is disproved. The maxim only comes into operation where there is no proof one way or the other; but where it is more probable that what was intended to be done was done as it ought to have been done to render it valid; rather than that it was done in some other manner which would defeat the intention proved to exist, and would render what is proved to have been done of no effect."