The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-04-22 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE WILL CASE.

HOUGHTON V. HOUGHTON.

The above cane was heard on Thursday last, at West-
mitinter, before Lord Penzance. Dr. Swabey was coun-
sel for the plaintiff*, and Dr. Kenealy for the defendant.
The plaintiffs were John and Joseph Houghton, who
propounded the will of their brother Samuel, who died
at Uldswinford on the 20th July, 1870. The testator wan
a painter by trade, and in early life he emigrated to
America, where he married, and was naturalised. lie
returned to England on one or two occasions for the par.
pone of seeing his relations, and eventually he brought
over his wife and family and settled down in his native
town. Defendant was his widow, with whom it was stated
he did not live very happily. He made his last will in
the June preceding bin death, by which he gave his wife
£5O, and the remainder of his property to his children,
appointing his brothers, the plaintiffs, trustees turf Cue'
colors, The widow now contested the validity of the
will, on the ground that it was obtained by the undue in-
fluence of Joneph Fulall, who had married the testator's
nether. The main feature relied upon, however, ap-
p. &red to be whether the deceased was domiciled in this
o,untry, and therefore whether hi, will could be admit-
ted to probate here. It was urged on the part of the
plaintiffs that he had nevem' times stated be should not
return to America, and in the meaning of the Act this
was sufficient. The following witnesses were then called
and examined :

John Houghton sail be wi, n brother to the testator,
and was one of the plaintiffs in the case. Witness went
to America, in the first place, with his brother ; but did
not remain there any length of time. Knew hie brother
married in America, and saw Lis wife. When his brother
returned to England the last time, he said he had had a
great deal of trouble with hie wife. He said he had I,GOO
dollars, in twenty dollar gold piece., besides English
money. On one occasion he remarked to witness that be
should like to make swill, to secure his three children,
and the amount be intended to give his wife was to be a
separate amount. Mr. Bethell, solicitor, was consulted,
and a paper was drawn up, leaving the wife one thiid of
the property, and the remainder to the children. The
wife made a snatch at the paper and tore it, but it had
been properly attested. The newt morning he said hia
wife had the whole of his money; BLIC hod taken it oat
of his pocket. He asked her for it, but she maid " Don't
bother me." His brother told witness that " his wile did
not care a fig for him or the children." She was once
going away with the money, and her husband insisted on
her being retained. Th. was done, and witness took
from her pocket a bag containing 1,250 dollars. Theta,.
tutor said this was not all, and owing to the disturbance
that took place three pol.ceineu came. He bald lila wife
should not have a farthing if bia money through Ler
lb•huviour, and Mr. Berry, solicitor, then came and made
a 2,ncolui will. Wane. placed the money in a bank by
his brother's desire. 11m brother, after witness hid
gically solicited him, cob,entr.l that his wife should
nalfu 150 to enable her to return to Amen., or logo to
Ireland, and a will was drawn up to that effect. Saw his
orother up to the day before his death. and had never
noticed that his mind was diseased.

Cross-examined by Hr. Kenesly Had never toll Lis
brother that his wife w:w a young woman, and would
probably marry again after his death. Took out a sum-
mons against Mrs. Ilaught,u for stealing some of her
husband's effects, but it tutu dismissed. She had said
that her husband was being murdered by witness, and
that he had a great influence ones him... . - .

kle•examineii.: The summons was dismissed by the
Magistrates, because it was a disputed claim.
Mr. U. Perry, solicitor, of Lhi town, stated that on the
24th of June, 1870, he was requested to make the testa-
-1.01'• will. The deceased desired that his wife should
Loses tbe room, upon which she became very much excl.
ted, and said he was insane. Hs said she had taken •
large sum of money out of the box that morning. The
testator wrote in uencili what he desired, and said his
children sh.uld have the whole of his money, as his wife
bad taken care of herself. This will was Iluly executed ;
and, on the 26th, another ene was drawn up, leaving the
wife .250, provided Ellne returned the whole of his pro•
pei ty.
Mr. Perry was nut cross-examined.

lhomaa [Mae stated that he wei a witness to the will,
and
.the testator was perfectly sane at the time.

Tins was the plaintiff's case.
fir. Kelm*ly bald he was not prepared to offer any
evidence is opposition to the will.
Mrs. Houghton soot she hoped the Judge would hear
her statement of the case?

Lord Penzance: You may come forward and be sworn,
if you like.
Mrs. Houghton then seat into the witness boa, and said
that about a week before her husband's death, John
lloughton told him that witneea was a young woman and
was sure to marry again. The testator's brothers were
always speaking to her husband about herself, and were
always endeavouring to influence him. Witness went on
ii detail her grievances, without the assistance of tier
eounael, when she was told that her statements had no-
thing to do with the case. She denied that her husband
had signed the will.
Lord Penzance handed Mrs. Hooghton the will, and at
first Rile said it was not signed by her husband, but on
being told that she was liable to be committed for per-
jury, she ultimately said she did not believe it was his
signature.
Dr. Kenealy said he could not carry his case further;
and .

Lord Penzance said that there was no doubt the will
was properly executed, and the wife had only herself to
damn; for there was no doubt she was a very violent
woman. .

The Court then pronounced for the will, with costs.
Dr. Swabey said that probably the plaiLtifli would not
ask for costs.