The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1882-08-01 00:00:00

proceeded risllzford. having opened the pleadings, pc. Deane
to address the jury, in support of the will. He
stated that be was there to poisoned In solemn form the
will of the late George Pittman tthorey, of Ringwood, in
the County of Hants,
_gentleman. The plaintiff, Yrs.
Eaton, who resides at Witiab,ree, contested the will on
the ground that the testator did not know Its Contents'
that any interest the defendant Jones took under the will
had been obtained by fraud, and that the execution of the
will was also obtained by fraud. He stated that he
should call two witnesses who were present when the will
was executed; he should call Jones himself, and another
witness, and that he thought the Jury would have no
hesitation in saying, having hoard the evidence of the
parties, that the will had been properly executed.
The two witnessn who attested the will were accord.
ingly cells I, and the defendant The latter stated that be
was the preacher at the chapel where the late Mr. Shorey
had asked him to copy • paper that he had ea • will. and
insert his name at execut ; and he also stated that the
testator told him that he iotooded, after giving some Bank
sharp to his relat one, that all the rendue of the estate
should belong to himself.
; This witness wadi leverrly cross-examined by Mr.
Inderwiek, and certain proceedings in Chancery were
put in which the defendant had alleged that the treater
intended only to leave five shares in the National Pro.
Tionist link to his relation., and that the whole of the
residue he had endeavoured in the Chancery suit to ptfor
himself.
Mr. Inderwick then proceeded to open the case for the
plaintiff. He atatel that the charge he had to slake
against Mr. Jones, the defendant, he • imitted, less •
most nor iota. o .6 ; it was th it he had frauduir ntly merle •
will giving • large part of the property of the deceased to
the extent of some thousands of pounds to tome-If,
lostead of amongst the relations of the deceased. Tte
texts of the case he would have to submit to the jury
were as follow :—The deceased in the year lhnd had merle
his will; by that will he gave the whole of trim property to
his relations. airing it to his brother, Mr. William Sherry,
who reeides at Weymouth, and his ei•ter the plaint.ff, hr
their lives, and afterwards t his nephews and niecrie. He
heel appoint- d Mr. Strange his executor. and under thet
will Mr. Strange, the executor, was to take no ben- tir. Ile
should show the jury that dr. Strange sew di sirous of
retiring from the execuioratiop, and had written to the
depend to this eff-ct, and that thereupon the deceared
had soaked the defendant Jones to recopy the will and
Insert his own name as executor instead of Mr. Strange,
and he should satisfy the Jury beyond ell question that,
instead of adopting this course, the defendant, Mr. Jones,
had made • fresh will, under which he had given • large
proportion of the property to himself; Gat the
deceased having the greatest confidence in Mr.
Jones, from his position as Weanyan n.leister
at his own chapel, had signed the will without
reading it over. It he established these facts, be should
have no hesitation in asking the jury to find that the
decimal did a, t know the content. of the will, that all
the gifts made to Mr. Jones were obtained by fraud, and
that the execution of the will was also fraudulent. He
pointed out to the jury that to-day, for the first time, the
defendant had sworn In the box that he did not copy the
will from the former will, but from a paper memorandum
given to him by the deceased; but in his affidavit made
in the proceedings lathe Court of Chancery be had sworn
positively that he had copied it from the old will, which
waa duly executed, and made no alteration whatever but
that of inserting his name as executor. The learned
counsel pointed out that at the time he made his affidavit
in the Chancery proceedings, he believed no trace of the
will could be obtained ; but, fortunately, the actual from
which the will was made had been found, and that showed
that the second will was in no way at all similar to the
first Upon than facts he asked the jury to find that •
gross fraud had been committed, and that the testator did
not know the nature of the document be was signing.

Numerous witness*, from Ringwood, Wiijoil;;;; and
Weymouth ware called to eurrolvonste this view of the case.
The President, Sir James 11.nneo, summed up the ease
for the jury, and pointed out the nature of the charge
made around the defendant, and the very suspicious cir-
cumstances arising from his conduct throughout ; and he
left it to them to my whether they believed the temator
did undentaad the nature of the will he logos& and
whether they considered that the defendant Jon,, inserted
benefits in his own favour fraudulently.
The Jury found both of the issues in favour of the
plaintiff, and the learned Judge thereupon roonounced
against the will, and ordered the defendant Jones to pay
all the mtg.