The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-29 00:00:00

A SINGULAR WILL CASE.

n the Probate Court on Saturday the action Hart
and Another v. Longcroft and Another was concluded.
This was a suit in which Henry Percival Hart and
Alfred Freeman Gill, as executors, propounded a will
executed by the late Major-General Longcroft on
May 19, 1883. Probate was at first opposed by Henry
Longcroft and Edith de St. Croix, children of the
testator, but they having withdrawn their opposition,
the defence was continued by interveners.
It appeared that the testator had served in the
Indian .Army, and was a retired major-general at the '
time of the execution of his will. Though he died
on May 22, 1883, which was only three days after the
will Was made, there was no doubt of his mental
capacity at the time he executed it. The substantial
defence was that the instrument was not duly executed
in accordance with the statute of wills. The plain-
tiff, Mr. Henry Percival Hart, was brother-in-law
of the testator, who sent for him the day before the
execution of the will, and offered to hand him over,
by means of two cheques on Coutts's a sum of £70,000,
that being the amount of his assets in money and
securities in that bank. The testator was then ill,
and he proposed to Mr. Hart that in case of his death,
the money should be applied in accordance with
general verbal directions then expressed and with the
terms of a memorandum which he handed to Mr.
Hart. This gentleman objected to having the testa-
mentary wishes of the Geieral carried out in that
form; but, though not a lawyer, he undertook to draw
up a will in accordance with the General's directions.
He accomplished this task by the next day. By the
will and a memorandum referred to in it, the testator
left £9OOO each to his son and daughter, £20,000 to
Mr. Needham, Longcroft., a nephew, and £lO,OOO each
to two sons of Mr. Hart, and various other specific
legacies. The residue he left in trust to Mr. Hart to
pay certain legacies to individuals and to pay, after
payment of those last mentioned legacies, what-
ever might remain to a number of charitable in-.
stitutions in the metropolis; the apportionmentt as
among those charities to be at the discretion of Mr.
Hart. In the will was a clause expressing the
entire confidence of the testator in Mr. Hart as the
person who was to dispose of the residue after the
specific legacies. Though the amount of the estate is
now nearer to £80,090 than £70,000, the managers of
the charities namedin'the memorandum believe -that
if the will and memorandum be carried on in the
manner therein indicated, there will be nothing left
for those charities. Hence, when the children of the
testator and the executors came to an arrangement,
the managers thought it their dn'y to continue the
opposition. One of the charities, the Governess's
Institution, had its case conducted by Mr. Mintyre,
Q.C., the others, and there were some ten or eleven of
them, by Mr. E. Clarke, Q.C. The charities set up a
will made by the testator in 1881, which, if estab-
lished, would give them absolute bequests. Mr. Hart
was examined by Mr. Middleton and stated the cir-
cumstances in which he drew up the will.

Mr. E. Clarke, Q.C., having put several questions
to the witness in cross examination, stated that as the
children of the testator had come in to oppose the will
in the first instance ar.d had only retired from the
opposition when bought off, the managers of the
charities which he represented had thought it their
duty to intervene and have an investigation of the
curious circumstances in. which the will was drawn.
They never had intended to cast any reflection on Mr.
Hart, but they had not had a full explanation of those
circumstances, until that gentleman had given his
evidence. Having heard that evidence he, on the
part of the managers of those charities, begged to
retire from the opposition; but he trusted his lord-
ship would be of opinion that the case was one in
which costs should be given to his clients.
Mr. Mintyre, Q.C., said he was in itie same poi-
lion as Mr. Clarke.
The President asked whether the opposition of the
children of the testator had been bought oft.
Mr. Inderwick replied that as the two sons of Me.
Hart had been left £lO,OOO each it had been agreed
to raise the amount which each of the children of
the testator was to receive to the same amount, thus
£lOOO would be added to the legacy bequeathed to
each of them,
The President said that if the son and daughter of
the deceased had withdrawn their opposition without
terms, he would not have granted any costs to the
charities; but, as a sum of money had been promised
the lady and gentleman to induce them to withdraw
it, he thought that justified an intervention on behalf
of the charities. He would, however, allow them only
one set of costs out of the estate. He hoped they would
themselves apportion that one set among them.
Formal proof having been given of its execution, his
Lordshii, pronounced for the will.

CHURCFI BUILDING IN THE PROVINCE Or YORIT.
From a statement just made up, it appears that during
a period of ten years the following numbers of churchet
have been built and restored, or enlarged, in the
various dioceses in the Northern Province: York,
built 42, enlarged, &c., 111; Durham, built 67
enlarged, &c„ 102; Carlisle, built 17, enlarged, &c
84; Chester, built 31, enlarged, &c., 81; Liverpool,
built 3, enlarged, &c., 1; Manchester, built 84,
enlarged, &c., 116; Ripon, built 74, enlarged, &c„ 70
Sodur anti Man. built 6. enlarged. ae.. 3.

THE KING OF NORWAY ON THE