The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-11-14 00:00:00

A DISPUTED WILL CASE.

In the Court of Probate the cause of " Toulmin D.
Batt" has bsen heard; arid the plaintiff in this case
propounded the will of the late Miss Sarah Baley,
who resided at 133, Camberwell l'Cew-road, London,
and who died on the 15th August, 1807, at the age of
seventy-five. The testatrix was the daughter of an
officer in the navy, and had come into possession of
some £7,000 left her by a relative; but, in conse-
quence of her intemperate habits a large portion of
that amount had been uselessly squandered. The
testatrix had executed several wills; but in the
month of December, 1663, she executed the will now I
set up by the defendant, by which she bequeathed to
him all her property. Sometime after that, Mr. Batt
arranged with a Mrs. Gee, who resided at the address
just stated, allowing that lady 13s. a-week to take care
of her, the testatrix herself allowing he rl2s. per week.
Mr. Batt also allowed the testatrix 255. per week for
her own use, and after some time, in consequence of the
importunities of the testatrix, that amount was increased
to the extent of a pound per month. in the early part
of May, 1867, the testatrix was seized with paralysis,
and the plaintiff, Dr. Toulmin, wl4; called in to attend
her. She had previously been talking of making a will,
but Mrs. Gee, knowing that she had made a will in
favour of Mr. Batt, paid no attention to her. Soon
after she was taken ill she toll Mrs. Gee that she had
something heavy on her mind which she wished to
disclose to the doctor. The doctor came in the course
of the day, and in the evening a Mr. Payne called and
took the old lady's instruetions for a new will, which
she executed on the 28th of May, 1867, bequeathing
by it the greater portion of her property to Mr,. Gee
and her daughter, appointing Dr. Toulmin her sole
executor. That will the defendant now opposed on the
ground of improper execution, incapacity, and want of
knowledge or approval of its contents by the testatrix.
He also set up the will in his fat our dated the 14th of
December, 1863, whichlthe plaintiff alleged was revok
by the subsequent wilt.
In support of the will propounded by the plaintiff,

several witnesses were called who spoke as to the
, perfect capacity and soundness of mind of the testatrix
at the time the will was executed, and also as to the
proper execution of that will.
In theconrse of the plaintiffs ease the learned Judge
suggested to the counsel on either side that it was one
of those cases in which an arrangement might very
properly be come to between the parties.
After a consultation between the counsel an arrange-
ment was agreed upon in the following terms :—That
it he referred to a competent person to ascertain what
the available divisible estate of the testatrix was, and
that the estate be then divided between the parties in
the way and in the proportion the court should indi-
cate. That on the value of the estate being ascertained,
application should he made to the court for a grant of
administration, which would be given to the party
paying the other the money, the estate to be divided
equally between the two.
The ease was adjourned until this arrangement w.is
carried out.