The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-03-13 00:00:00

A DISPUTED WILL.

In the Court of Probate and Divorce the cause of
"Collis v. Collie" has been heard, and in which the
defendant propounded the will of the late Mr. James
Collis, of Cortenwood Farm, in the county of Somer-
set, who died on the sth of June, 1867. The will is
opposed by the plaintiff, who is a brother of the
testator, on the ground that it was not properly
executed.
It appeared that the testator had for many years
occupied the farm of Cortenwood, in the county of
Somerset. He was a widower and had no children.
He had several brothers, one of whom died, leaving a
young son, and the testator adopted the boy and
brought him up. The testator, on finding his health
failing, thought of making his will, and accordingly,
on the 17th of January, 1867, he sent for a Mr.
Brayne, who resided in the village of Corton, and who
was the general will maker for all the country round.
This gentleman drew up the will, and at the time he
did so one of the testator's brothers, named Charles,
was present. By the will the testator bequeathed the
whole of his property and effects to his nephew
Charles, the son of his deceased brother, whom he had
brought up, and who had lived with him nearly all his
life. The proper execution of the will was now dis-
puted, and that was the only question for the jury.
It appeared that there were three attesting witnesses
to the wilL One of them was the testator's house-
keeper, who signed by a mark. She placed her mark
to the will, but having done so in the wrong place, she
placed another mark, and both marks now appeared
on the face of the document.
Mr. Brayne, who drew up the will, and one of the
attesting witnesses to it, was called, and detailed the
circumstans attending its execution. He 888/ the
testator sign it, and he signed it after him as witness-
ing his signature. The testator's brother Charles
signed as another attesting witness, and the house-
keeper put her mark to the will as another. She,
however, put it in the wrong place, and by the desire
of witness she placed it in the proper place. He
received half-a-crown for drawing up the will.
The other attesting witness, Charles Collis, was also
called, and gave mach the same story as to the elects.
tion of the will, with the exception that he said the
housekeeper was sent for after he and Brayne had
signed the will.

The testator's housekeeper stated that on the day the
will was made, her master called her into the r, om.
She saw her master's name and the other two on the
will, but she saw none of them written.
Several witnesses were then called who proved the
testator's handwriting, and who were of opinion that
his signature to the will was a genuine one.
, On the close of the defendant's case, Dr. Spiedes
opened the case for the plantiff, which simply was that
the testators signature to the will was a forgery.
In supp,!rt of this case he called several witnesses.
! A labouring mar of the name of Davis who had beet,
' for several years in the testator's employment, stated
that two days after the testator's death his house-
keeper told him that there was a will, but that it was
not signed.
Mr. Chabot, and Mr. Netherelift, experts, gave it as
their opinion that the signature was not in the hand-
writing of the deceased.
Mr. Charles Pollock, QC., addressed the jury on
the part of the defendant. Ile contended that the
evidence of the experts were not to be relied on, while,
upon the other hand, they had the evidence of a clerk
in the bank in which the testator transacted business,
who stated distinctly that had a cheque been presented
at their bank with the testator's signature attached to
it similar to his signature to the will he would have at
once cashes! it. _ . .

The learned Judge then summed up the evidence,
and the Jury, after a few minutes' consideration in
the jury-box, gave a verdict for the defendant in favour
of the will.
The Court accordingly pronounced for the will, and
condemned the plaintiff in costs, but refused to certify
for a special jury.