The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-03-28 00:00:00

A REMARKABLE WILL CASE.

In the Probate and Divorce Division on Tuesday,
before the Lord Chief Justice and the Right Hon.
Sir James Hannen, the case of ViTingrove v. Win-
grove and others was heard. Their lordships sat as
a divisional court to hear an application for a new
trial in the probate action, or, in the alternative, to
enter judgment for the defendants. Mr. Inderwick,
Q.C., who, with Mr. Barnard, appeared for the de-
fendants, said that the suit was one affecting the
testamentary disposition of the late Mrs. E. Wingrove,
who died on the 28th of March, 1882. She made a
will in 1869, and two codicils—one in October, 1880,
and the other in January, 1882. There was no dis-
pute as to the will. With regard to the codicils,
the due execution of them was admitted
on the pleadings, as also was the capacity
of the deceased, and the only question
to be determined was whether the two codicils
were obtained by the undue influence of the
three defendants, who were the executors of the will
and codicils. The testatrix was a widow, who had
three sons, Alfred, the plaintiff, the youngest, and
William and James, the defendants. Their father
had carried on the business of a brass founder in the
City, and, in addition to that, he carried on the busi-
ness of a cow-keeper at Walthamstow. Upon the
father's death the eldest son, William, carried on the
business of the brass foundry. In 1877 the plaintiff,
Alfred, the youngest son, married, and the testatrix
then went to live with William, the eldest son. She
afterwards appeared to have been anxious to make
an alteration in her will. The whole of the
estate was freehold, and she was anxious
that the property should be divided amongst the
three sons, but it was not an equal division, as the
eldest son William had the largest share. In
1880 Alfred's wife committed adultery with a man in
her husband's employment, and went away with him
to Cambridge. This came to the knowledge of the
Testatrix, who was not pleased with her conaact, and
she wished Alfred to proceed for a divorce, but after a
time Alfred forgave his wife and resumed cohabitation
with her. This seemed to have annoyed the Testratrix
still more, and shelpoke to several people about it and
insisted on making an alteration in her original will.
In consequence, by the first codicil, Alfred's interest in
the property was taken away, with the exception
of a small annuity. Later on, James, the second
son, got into difficulties, which, were, however,
got over; but William thought it advisable
that some independent person should be associated
with him in the executorship, and Mr. Philip J. Wentz-
zell, manager of a distillery in Aldersgate-street, was
appointed. That was the only effect of the second
codicil. On the 28th of March, 1882, the Testatrix
died, and afterwards there was an administration suit,
but ultimately the parties came to an arrangement.
Subsequently the plaintiff Alfred instituted this suit
for revocation of the probate of the will and codicils,
on the ground of undue influence, exercised by the
son William. The case was heard before Mr. Justice
Butt and a common jury on the 17th December last,
and in the course of the trial the learned judge ex-
pressed his belief that no undue influence had been
proved. The matter was, however, left to the jury,
who immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff
Alfred, on the ground that undue influence had been
used, and thus setting aside the codicils. Mr. Justice
Butt entered judgment on this finding, but imme-
diately stayed execution. 11e (Mr. Inderwick) now
asked their lordships to enter a verdict for the
defendants, or as the alternative to grant a new trial.
The Lord Chief Justice, addressing Mr. Gye, who
appeared for the plaintiff, said you will, perhaps, tell
me what influenced the jury in the verdict they came
to.

Mr. Gye said that it was not his doing. It was
the witnesses who had given evidence in the case
which no doubt influenced them, and he had no hesi-
tation in saying that there was undoubted evidence of
undue influence exercised. The learned counsel
then proceeded to refer at length to the evidence in
support of this contention. The plaintiff in the action
by this codicil of October, 1880, had been deprived of
freehold house property amounting to considerably
over £2OOO, and had only been left the paltry sum of
£26 a year. lie alleged that the testatrix was of a
weak and vacillating mind, and had been induced into
signing the codicil. There was only one other point
he would submit, and that was that the son William
was in the habit of supplying large quantities
of wine to his mother, while he knew her to be given
to drink wine.

The Lord Chief Justice: Don't ladies do so?
r Mr. Gye : Well, my Lord, I am not aware of
that.

The Lord Chief Justice: Was this a special jury
who heard the case?

Mr. Gye : No, my Lord. It was a common jury,
but a very good one.
The Lord Chief Justice : They have evidently been
good for you.
On the conclusion of the learned counsel's argu-
ment, the Lord Chief Justice said they were of
opinion that the verdict should be set aside, but the
question was whether they should grant a new trial
or enter a verdict for the defendants. - -

Mr. Inderwick said he did not dispute that there
was some evidence to go to the jury.
The Chief Justice then said there was no question
that the verdict of the jury was against the over-
whelming weight of evidence. The verdict of the
jury would therefore be set aside, and a new trial
granted.