The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-11-27 00:00:00

SATURDAY, NOV. 27, 1875.

kept, and where it remained until hes,father's illness in
September, when she herself took chargrof it. In December,
Lord St. Leonards was able to leave his room, and the box
wee then again brought down and placed in its usual place
in the saloon. In March or April, 1871, the testator was
again attacked' with illue3s. and Itgiin Miss Sugden took
charge of the box anti retained the custody of it until her
father's death in Janinity, 1875, when, on the box being
opened, it was discovered that the will was not among his
testamentary papers, These were the facts so far as the box
in which the missing paper was deposited was concerned, and
Let them consideehow far those facts supported or rebutted
Ole presumption that the will was destroyed by the testator
With the intention of revoking it. The law in the matter
WAS clearly laid down in the jucgment of Lord Wensleydale,
in the Privy Council, in the case of " Whelch v Phillips (1
" Moore," P.C. 302). In that case the noble and learned lord
said

" The rule of the law of evidence on this subject established
by a series of decisions in the Ecclesiastical Courts is this—
that if a will traced to the possession of the deceased and
last seen there is not forthcoming at his death, it is presumed
to have been destroyed by himself, and that presumption
must have effect, unless there is sufficient evidence to repel
i`. "It is a presumption founded in good sense; for it
is highly reasonable to suppose that an instrument of so
much importance would be carefully preserved by a person
of ordinary caution in some place of safety, and would not
be either lost or stolen, and if, on the death of the maker,
it is not found in his usual repositories, or else where he
resides, it is In a high degree probable that the deceased him-
self has purposely destroyed it. But this presumption, like
all others of fact, may be rebutted by others which rase a
higher degree of probability to the contrary. The onus of
proof of such circumstances is undoubtedly on the party
propounding the wilL "

But did the ordinary presumption arise in the present case?
Was the missing will, after the 23rd of August, 1873, so in
the possession and under the control of the deceased lord
that its absence from the box in which it had been deposited
on his death raised the presumption that he himself had
destroyed It? He denied as a matter of fact that
the will was in the possession of Lord St. Leonards
In the sense in which he should have possession of it
for the purpose of raising the presumption of its de-
struction by him. After the will was last Been, and after
it had been deposited, silth the codicils, in the will-box by
the testator, evidently with the intention of preserving all
his testamentary papers intact, the box was left exposed on
a table in the room for an hour or an hour and a half. He
made no accusation against anybody, but was it an impro-
bable supposition that the document during that interval
might have been abstracted from the box for the purpose of
gratifying mere curiosity, and that the opportunity of
restoring it did not present itself? It was known that on
that morning Lord St. Leonards had exeouted a testamentary
paper of some kind; it was known also that on the execution
of one of the previous documents he had stated that a legacy
had been left to a particular servant ; not only was the key
of the box of an ordinary kind, but it was in evidence that
there was a duplicate key in the escritoire, which could be
opened by the key of the cupboard in which the decanters
were kept, and which key was kept by the servant, whose duty
It was to take charge of them. Access to the box was there-
fore not difficult, and he repeated that it was quite possible
that the box might have been opened and the will abstracted
from no other motive than the gratification of an idle
curiosity. But it was in the conduct and declarations of
the testator himself that the strongest circumstances were
to be found to rebut the presumption that the paper
had been destroyed by him. It was clear that when
the will was made it was the intention of the testator
to entail upon those who would succeed him in the peerage
the-principal part of his real estates. It was equally clear,
not only from the declarations of the testator, but also from
the codicils, that he intended to give his son,. Mr. Frank
Sugden, not only the Kingsdown estate, but also Boyle Farm,
for life; that he likewise intended to make a liberal provision
for his daughter, Miss Sugden, in order that she might enjoy
the comforts to which she had been accustomed during
his life; that in 1872 he had become totally estranged
from his grandson, Mr. Edward Bartenshaw Sugden, now
Lord St. Leonards, and that the dispositions in the sixth
and seventh codicils to the will were the result of his dis-
pleasure with his grandson. In such a state of things what
objects could the testator have had in revoking the will?
He must have been aware of the consequences of the
act, that it would not only revoke the demises and be-
quests in it in favour of his daughter, who was not other-
wise provided for, save as to the house and meadows at
Thames Ditton, and of his son Mr. Frank Sugden, to whom
to the last moment of his life he declared the Kingsdown
estate should go, but that the effect would also be to pass the
estates to his grandson without any limitation whatever.
All the evidence went to show that one of the main objects;
of the testator throughout his life was to make adequate pro-
vision for the maintenance of the Peerage which had been
conferred;upon him and with that view he had entailed the
greater portion of his real property on those who were to
succeed him in the title. It was impossible to conceive the
state of circumstances in which he would have departed from
that intention, and yet if it were to be held that he had
revoked the will, his estates, save those affected by the
codicils, would become the absolute property of his grand-
son and successor, the present lord, who might dispose of
them as he pleased, and the Peerage would stand a
barren title. It was almost impossible to conceive that
the testator could, under any circumstances, have con-
templated such a result, or that he would have
intentionally produced it by the destruction of his
will, the more especially as the revocation of the in-
strument would operate wholly in favour of his grandson,
with whom for two years before his death belied ceased to
hold any communication. It might lee said that as he had
revoked the codicil by which he had disinherited his
grandson in 1870, when the matrimonial engagement into
wli ch the grandson lied enterel, and of which he dis-
approved, was broken off, so also might he have become
reconciled to his grandson on learning that the engagement
of 1872 had also been abandoned; but the engagement of
1872 was not broken off until 1874, and then the testator
could not have had access to his papers, inasmuch as he was
confined to his room by illness and the will box was in the
custody of Miss Sugden. It was also to be borne in mind,
assuming the destruction of the w 11 by the testator himself,
that there were times between August, 1873, and his death
in January, 1875, when he laboured under attacks of delirium,
and it was for those who contended for its, revocation to
show that when he destroyed the paper he was in a sound
state of mrnd, that he was aware of the consequence of his
act, and that he intended them. All the circumstances of
the case, however, rebutted the presumption of revocation, and
as to the other question in this case, the contents of the will as
set out in the declaration, not only had Miss Sugden no shadow
of doubt as tothe accuracy of herrecollection in the matter, but
it was hardly possible to conceive that she would pledge herself
to a false statement in regard to it seeing the position in
which she would be placed by the discovery at a future
time of the missing document. He therefore asked
the Court with confidence to pronounce for the will and
codicils. In concluding his argument, which occupied the
greater part of the day, Mr. Hawkins said,-1 hope,
sad I feel bound to say it for the satisfaction of L ird St.
Leonard', that in the observations I have made in re-
ferrii g to the matters which created displeasure on the
part of his grandfather towards him nothing fell from me
which could militate against his character as a gentle-
man and a man of honour. I Would not have it to go
orth to the public that there was on his part any breach
of honour or anything tor which ?to should have cause to be
ashamed. It is sufficient for my purpose to show that dis-
pleasure did arise in the mind of the testator towards his
grandson, but it is my duty to say that there is nothing in
the least degree in the matters to which I have referred
which reflects upon the character of Lord,,. St. Leonard's as
an Englisle gentleman, or upon his honour.

_
Dr. Deane then proceeded to reply, on behalf of
Lord St. Leonurds, in opposition to the will, but had
made little progress with his argument when the Court
adjourned.

The further hearing of the cause of " Sugden and
others v. Lord St. Leonards and others," was resumed
on Wednesday morning in the Probate, Divorce, and
Admiralty division of the High Court of Justice, be-
fore the Right Hon. Sir James Hannen, the president.

_
Dr. Deane, Q. C., who was interrupted in his address on the
part of the defendant, Lord St. Leonards, by the rising of the
Court. on Saturday afternoon, resumed his address. The
learned counsel went on to refer to what had been said by the
counsel on the other side upon a declaration made by a wit-
ness of the name of Thompson as to some small bequests'which
they stated as having been made in the will. The witness said
that the testator told her that he had made certain bequests
to Miss Sugden in respect of the cows and the dairy, but
which must have at that time been abandoned, as an altera-
tion had been made in the will in that respect. After the evi-
dence which had been given, it would be idle to deny that
there had been an intention in Lord St. Leonard's mind to
devise the Kingdown estates to Mr. Frank Sugden. It was
stated to have been his intention to make him the head of
the family, but the question was whether he expressed this
opinion after August, 1873. The singularity in the case
was that in all the testamentary documents which had
been referred to in respect to the will of 1870, there was no
provision whatever made as to the peerage, or as to
Arthur Sugden, who was to inherit it. That was a re-
markable circumstance, as several of the witnesses
stated that it was always the expressed wish and desire of
the testator to provide for the peerage, one of the wit-
nesses stating that 4, ord St Leonards was always in the habit
of stating that those who had a peerage ought to provide for
it. Ile then alluded to thia declarations the deceased was
alleged to have made in favour of Miss Sugden. He was
stated to have declared that she was to have the three
meadows and St. Leonards' Farm, which he ssdd would make
her a rich landed proprietor, but while those statements
were as genera,' as the others, they were reversed by the will
propounded, under which she took only a share of the resi-.
duo.

Mr. Hawkins: Under the will she takes St, Leonards'
Farm.

Dr. Deane; She may have done so, but she had her share
of the residue, and a house was to be built for her under
her own directions, so as that, according to the evidence, she
might live in the midst of her friends. He would there-
fore state as to the evidence respecting the alleged will
there was nothing specific or precise—all was of the most
general character, and there was nothing in it, as he alleged
against the proposition that Lord St. Leonards was to have
Kingsdown Farm. No doubt Mr. F. Sugden in his evidence
stated that his father's intentions were otherwise, and that
on that point his father had told him that his decision
that he, Mr. Frank Sugden, should have it was irre-
vocable; but on that, as on all the other points of the case,
there was no evidence whatever to show that such were
Lord St. Leonards' intentions up to the time of his death.
Then as to Miss Sugden's recollections of what was in the
will. She stated Unit there was a legacy in it to the present
Lord Si. Leonards, but on inquiry that turubd out not to
be the case ; and if, therefore, Miss Sugden was mistaken—
unintentionally, he admitted—On that point, was it not pos-
sible that she might be mistaken as to others, and that
point he pressed on the attention of the court. The learned
counsel then proceeded to argue as to the destruction of
the wilL The will was seen to have been placed in a box
by Lord St. Leonards himself in August, 1873. That box
remained in the same place until October, when Lord St.
Leonards, having been taken ill, Miss Sugden removed it
to her own room, but on his recovery, in December, it
was placed in the "old place' and it remained there
up to the 20th of March, 1874. According to the
evidence, therefore, with the exception of the brief period
referred to, that box was within the reach and under the
entire control of Lord Si. Leonards. Mr. Hawkins had
said that the box in which the will was placed was never
actually in his possession at all; but if that were so, then
the will itself never was in his possession, except at the time
he wrote it. He was Been to put it Into that box which was
in the testator's possession, and if the will had been removed
from the box, acccording is the decision of the Privy Coun-
cil in a similar case it must have been so by Lord St.
Leonards himself, or a crime had bsen committed. But who
could have committed the crime; who had any inducement to
do so ; who had any interest in doing so? Mr. Hawkins had
said the will had been taken out. of the box I,y some one
out of malice or auimo;ity. But in whose breast could this
malice or animosity have existed? The will consisted of
some twenty peen, the cod]cils having been placed inside of
it, and in that state it was placed in the box in question, and
the peculiarity In the case was, that while the will had dis-
appeared the codicils were left. Several suggestions had
been made on the disappearance of the will, but all of which,
as he considered, failed. When the will was not found
after Lord St. Leonards' death, every step wet taken, and
every possible inquily made respecting it but without
effect, for not the slightest clue hen been obtained respect-
ing it. Who then could have removed It? Ho had
, looked over the alleged draft Of the will, and, on looking
at the effect which the codicils would have upon it he
could not conceive a document more inartistic. These
codicils, in fact,, almost made the will Incomprehensible,
and his theory was that, considering the groat altera-
tions these codicils made in it, Lord St. Leonards
seeing that, did take the will out of the box himself
and destroy it, in order to revoke it. with the intention
of executing another will That he had the opportunity
of doing , so there could be no doubt. for he was almost
every day in the room in which the box and the will was
'placed from morn until eight o'clock at night, and what
was to hinder him to act in accordance with the theory he
pad suggested? If a feean, as had been suggested, had
broken open the box and taken out the will, that theory
Might have been applicable, as no doubt the felon would
have macle a,c,leati sweep of it; but if Lord St: Leonard's
had done so himself, while he took out the will he
would have naturally left the codicils in order that he might
prepare a new will from them. It might appear singular that
Lord St. Leonards should have destroyed the old will before
he prepared a new one, but on that point they must
look to the great age of the noble and learned lord
and to his mental state at the time. Testamentary
documents would seem to have always been running in
his head, and on one occasion he was heard to refer
to them in a sort of refrain, and there was, therefore,
no accounting for what he might have done in that respect.

con.
Mr. Hawkins had made a great point as to the digastdriceus pre'
sequences which would ensue were this will and co
pounced against, but he would remind the Court thatace;"
svir.
to the dictum of the learned judge, " Compassion was %epee&
tue of courts of justice." It was not a question of collseq"
idered
but of facts : and keeping these facts in view, be el° will
It impossible that the court could pronounce for
in coedit'
and codicils propounded. He had only to state —usd Doi
sion, that as representing Lord St. Leonardo, he "ing--0
said—at all events he had done the best to avoid Piano
single word which would give pain to any one of the ion De
If he had failed in that, he withdrew any expreS%epo
might have used, tending in that direction.with the
regret.
After some further argument the c•ase via°
adjourned.
•

anSttliaittatlS ntelligenCt;
HOME, FOREIGN, AND COLONIAL.

IndeP°ll.
ANYTHING BUT A DRY REMARE.--"--ing the
deuce is always much to be coveted; but duroi
late floods to have been able to "Paddle
Canoe" must have proved more than usually hell°
—Punch.
To GIRLS WHO "WALK WITH TIIB
.„.610!","
Ethel. "Aren't you going to shoot to-day WWI 01
Uncle. "Not if you are, my dear. 11800 Bts)'
young, the men shot the birds, and the W cnn—
at home to cook them."—Punch. t 1;1
A SLIGHT MISTAKE !—One dark night no
ago a burglar entered a private residence on Newi,,e
Broadway. On ascending one flight of stairs "rois6
served a light in a chamber, and while dal 00
deu
what to do a large woman suddenly descen doo
him, seized him by the throat, pushed Ilirn before
through the hall, and forced him into the street opt
he had time to think. "Heroic Repulse of a !evil
by a Woman" was the way the story was told b ,ed bet
day. But when friends called and congratulto
don° d
upon her courage she exclaimed : "Good 81%1310-
didn't know it was a burglar! If I had I silt/ 130,,,
been frightened to death. I thought it Was
band come home drunk, and I was deteroaw
shouldn't stay in the house in that conditioo. 1/it;
if
THAT "EXPLAINS IT."— Green. " °
7; 1°-
Brown, you always have such splendid fruit 00
garden? I exhibit and carry off cups aadmat),l#l
least my Gardener does, for I only see it in
I never have such Fruit•as this on my Table!" / keeP,'
" Simplest thing in the World, old Fellow.
Gardener for my Garden; you keep a Garden J°
Gardener I"—Punch. ftso
ACCIDENT AT A PARIS CIRCUS.-llitef Add'
Correspondent of the Standard, writing iI
410"
says
Paris was horrified this morning by the repor',;:iiirde
dent at the Winter Circus last night. • A Eran-...ste"
Mayol, had inaugurated an innovation in the trar-00001
cise—instead of merely swinging himself fronl out, sID„,
to another, he had himself shot out of a mortar tire.' dril
charge of powder on to the trapeze bar. 00 St-n-101_,
had performed the feat successfully, but las" ~-listrsl
did not manage to clutch the bar properly, or the;forslo„A
powder was too strong, and he was projected beau., plc;
on to the balustrade in front of the boxes, and WePit,
up senseless. He recovered in about twenty taint evror
said to ne none the worse, but all the papers Vlltt6d'
make an outcry against such exhibitions being Pe'-were
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT,—There ofrk
many as 4,438 persons imprisoned in the eetidirlieurtl,,i,'
year 1874 by order of Judges of CountY u°001;
England and Wales. The largest numbers 911_4 004
90
lowing seven :-94 persons were impr180n5t01;„:
ardera made at the County Court held at D'aer A"
persons under orders made at Leicester; 106
136 at Leeds; 162 at Birmingham; 173 at Li' bet
and Barrow•in-Furness, where the whole 130191.9651
plaints entered was but 3,034; and, lasq.o.
'Wigan. This last town belongs to Circuit I'os Ie„,
which the number of persons imprisoned in.„bet,i'to
was 423, or not very far from double the 11117,010,d
prisoned on any other circuit. The number tee
entered on that circuit was 23,404, but there "
other circuits with a still larger number of co
yori
Circuits No. 57 and 59, in rural or small-t0tc120,310,
in the South-west, had a little more than 10,nvslo
each, but had to send only ten persons to prison
year, six in one circuit and four in the other. 1010
THE SHORTEST WAY THE BEST.---i-ui.106
di
(to Ethel, on their way to the latter's first partli)4.,be
mind, Darling, if you see any nice Things on
that you'd like to Eat, you nausa't Ask for tbovid.
Ethel. "0 No, Mamma !—l'll Take them 1"---`
r
BAST AND WEST.—A contemporarh.: et, .10
ing the benefits likely to accrue from the viet'',,'T sej
of the Heir to the Throne, describes his ioullipeajiti
move in the right direction." It is to be
no European nor any other complications wil1,101"
to bring the Prince back before he has fulfilled
gramme, but surely the " move "in the re 1,, ir
direction" will take place when H.R.H. turno '-
homewards again.—Judy. • 011
A HINT ABOUT CHILDREN—
C
birds, and they should have theirhbiLdarlceill ite
aeleceeo;lll
they are dressed. Eight o'clock is quite late o,cl
for them to begin the matutinal repast; °fleatigllol
dinner, a four or five o'clock tea, and a Bevel; ,
o'clock supper should mark out those severwbA;
the day. Long fasts are injurious to groviiM,,,ciarT"te
and on the other hand continual feeding is as "t,',ol°ll
therefore, regular hours and regular meals 01-e plefer,
arranged and kept. The only internae,clAte 11
allowable is that of luncheon. When on;110",leci
hungry, and willing to eat plain food, it in tiot
them have some in the interval between brea%to ty%
dinner, but on no account allow them to
dreadful habit of perpetually munching and bePA,
—an indulgence which destroys the naturs,' OP%
appetite and soon spreads a sickly hue over tile
to v 0
THE BENGAL FAMINE.—A return
P
House of Commons, moved by Mr. Fortesotlepstej
has just been printed, giving information r. L'O
with the Bengal famine. The total approinn:tedio
Tl
of relief works to Government is estfr,,-,000
£1,662,612. Mr. Harrison, the Controller- n-f
India in a communication to the Governlnenut"ttee
dated Calcutta, 21st of May last, shows OA' 300
cesa of famine expenditure over loans to the, tonl
July, 1874, was £1,667,731. After setting 'fir?
various loans in India and England, he add ot close if
be observed that the net expenditure at thi.e iesto
July was greater than at the completion of t'epAlf
consequence of the recoveries during the later d, (35
being in excet3s of the charges. On the other h.,n;,,T1 fe,o
a small portion of the 2. million loan raiseo
had been recovered before the 31st of July, VI,I
unexpended balance was in hand on that dste' in
these causes little comparison is possible, fg-op
accounts or estimates_already furnished with t"h 004
cial statement, but there seems no reason to 'bore]
their- correctness. It may be interesting t° c 100.401
meat to learn that the recoveries at the the'bd
February last were already sufficient to redOstior
expenditure to within forty lakhs of the e°
amount.