The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-07-15 00:00:00

A REMARKABLE CASE.

In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, on Mon-
day (before Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Matins), the cause
of "Macmillan v. Duncombe " has been heard. A claim
was made in this case to a sum of £.24,834 lls. 6d. Consols,
under somewhat peculiar circumstances. The case is thus
reported in 'the Times of Tuesday :

Mr. Duncombe, a solicitor, of New•inn, Strand,
died intestate on the 29th of January, 1869, possessed
of considerable wealth. He had three children only—
viz., Henry Stuart Dimcombe, Charles William Dun-
combe, and Ann Maria Johnson, a widow. Mr.
Duncombe was dissatisfied with the conduct of his
eldest son. in 1868, that son, then sixty-six years of
age, went to his father's office for pecuniary hell:). and
the old Man practically refused to assist him, for be
dismissed him with the sum of half a crown. That
was in August. 1868. From that time to the present
Henry Stuart Duncombe had never been seen or heard
of. In February, 1870. the following advertisement
was insulted in the London and provincial news-
papers :

Tv. enty Pounds Reward—To Registrars of Deaths and
Parish Clerks, Tailor's Trade Societies. and Masters of Union
and other Workhouses—Wanted, information of a person
named Henry Stuart Dancombe, a journeyman tailor, much
in the habit of travelling the country, and who, if living,
would be 67 years of age. Was last seen in London in
August, 1863. Any person who can give information as to
his whereabouts, or who can supply a certificate of his
death, will receive the above reward by applying to Henry
Treble, 96, Vauxhall-walk, Lambeth, London, aE. '
Henry Stuart Duncombe was, when last seen, unmar-
ried. No answers were ever received to the advertise-
ments. Mrs. Johnson, when she married, had exe-
cuted a settlement by which, if Henry Stuart Dun-
combe pre-deceased her, her interest in his share of
Mr. Duncombe's estate would be bound, otherwise
not. She was now dead, leaving an only child, a boy.
This suit was instituted with respect to Henry Stuart
Dancombe's share of his father's estate, which was
represented by the above sum of Consols • and the
question was whether the trustees of Mrs:Johnson's
settlement and the other son of Mr. Duncombe were
entitled to the fund between them, or whether it was
devisable among the next-of-kin of Henry Stuart Dun-
combe, aPsumina him to have been, under the circum-
stances alive at the end of seven years from the time
when he was last seen in London, but now dead, in-
testate, and unmarried.

Mr. Glasse Q.C., and Mr. Freeling were for the
plaintiffs in the suit, who were the trustees of Mrs.
Johnson's settlement; Mr. J. Pearson, Q.C., and Mr.
Herbert H. Cozens Hardy were for the defendant
Charles William Duncombe; Mr. Bristowe, Q.C., and
Mr. M'S winny were for the other parties.
The Vice-Chancellor said this case was a very re-
markable one. The property in question was one.
third of the personal estate of a Mr. Duncombe a
solicitor, of New-inn, who died possessed of consider-
able wealth, but intestate. In 1868 his family con-
sisted of two sons and a daughter. If they all sur-
vived him they would take his property in equal
shares. One of the sons was a journeyman tailor—in
fact, an itinerant tailor. That son, Henry Stuart Dun-
cembe, was last seen at his father's office in New-inn
in August, 1868. He had gone there in great distress,
although 66 years of age, to ask his father for some
pecuniary assistance. His; father, who was a man of
very great age, appeared, for some cause or other' but
for what in particular was not known, to have been
displeased with his son—his eldest son. He then gave
him the sum of 28.6 d. The son left the father's office,
and was seen no more. - When the father died in-
testate it became necessary to ascertain whether Henry
Stuart Duncombe was living or dead. If he did not
survive his father, then the other son and the daughter
would, as the father's sole next-of-kin, be entitled to
the property—about £70,000 in equal shares. If, how-
ever, Henry Stuart Duncombe survived his father, he
would take oneetlaird of the money. His Lordship
said that, under the circumstances, he must, having
regard to the authorities on the subject, presume that
Henry Stuart Duncombe did survive his father. Then
came the question whether he was to be presumed to
be dead now. Every London and provincial paper had
been resorted to, and advertisements issued for
the son's discovery, but nothing had been
heard of him. His Lordship said he had not a
shadow of a doubt that the son was now dead,
and must so conclude. There remained, however,
another question to be put, if not answered—via,
When did the son die? Mrs. Johnson, the sister, was
now dead. If Henry Stuart Duncombe died in her
lifetime, she would, as one of his next-of-kin, have an
interest in his share of the property. She had executed
a settlement of her property, and had left one child.
If, however, Henry Stuart Duncombe survived his
sister, then his share would not be bound by her settle-
ment of her-interest in it. It was incumbent on those
elaiminsr under the settlement to show that Henry
Stuart Duncombe died before. They bad not done so
and could not do so. His Lordship had already
said that he must presume that Henry Stuart Dun-
combe survived his father • and if, therefore, his one-
third was not bound by the settlement, it was now
divisible among his sole next-of-kin. But his next-
of-kin now, were his brother and Mrs. Johnson's
child. The only conclusion at which his Lord-
sbip could arrive on this part of the case was that
Henry Stuart Dancombe was now certain!y dead, intes-
tate, and that his brother and nephew were his sole
next-of-kin. They would, therefore, take his share of
Mr. Duncombe's property in equal moieties, and there
must be a declaration accordingly. If, hereafter,
Henry Stuart Duncornbe should be found to be living,
he must resort to his brother and nephew for the re-
payment of the money. It was entirely his own fault
that he had not made his existence known (if he did
exist) • for it was hardly to be supposed that, if he was
still alive, he could not have seen some of the very
numerous advertisements which had been issued for
him. His Lordship said he himself thought, to use
the words of a great writer, that Henry Stuart
Duncombe was "as dead as a door-nail." The de-
claration must be that he survived the intestate, his
father, and was alive at the end of seven years from
the time he was last seen—viz.' at the end of seven
years from August, 1868; that he was now dead, in.
; and that his sole next-of-kin—viz., hisbrother
and nephew—were now entitled to his share of Mr.
Duneombe's property.