The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-06-12 00:00:00

back to take care of the house till he could get some
one." Her mother went back and stopped with her.
Dr. Brown said, "By all means fetch her, away. I
believe Mrs. Baines to be as honest and virtuous a woman
as any we have about; she has always been kind to
my children, and served us in an honest upright
sort of a manner, and anything that I can do
for her I shall be happy to do. The fact is
Mr. Burroughs is infatuated with Mrs. Baines ; he has
tried hard to send Mrs. Burroughs away with me to
come on me for damages, and last of all he has turned
her out of doors. I believe your sister to be a virtuous
woman, but Burroughs is a villain; get her away." In
consequence of something he (witness) heard, he went
to Mr. F. Burroughs, the attorney, before he heard of
this letter. In consequence of these reports his sister
had been unable to get a situation. When he heard of
this letter he instructed Frank Burroughs to commence
proceedings.

Cross-examined.—First heard of the letter from Dr.
Burroughs. Believed he saw it. He had not heard
prior to seeing Dr. Brown that Mrs. Burroughs had
run off with that gentleman.

Re-examined.--Dr. Brown said, " Your sister is a
virtuous woman, but if people will come forward in a
court of justice., what is the use of her asserting her
innocence."

(The case was proceding when our parcel was
despatched.)

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before Sir CRESSWELL CRESSWELL.)
SEATON V. STURM AND BARWICH.

The plaintiff propounded the will, dated the 2nd of

December, 1859, of the late Mrs. Margaret Tanner, of

which he was executor. The defendants, two of the
deceased's next of kin, pleaded undue execution, inca-
pacity, and that the will was not the will of the deceased,
but gave notice that they did not intend to call evidence.

The testatrix was the housekeeper of Lady Olivia
Sparrow, of Brampton-park, in Huntingdonshire, and
'she died on the 14th of March last. The defendants
were two of her nephews, and she had made a will in
favour of one of them, Mr. Starch, a few months before
the present will was executed. The plaintiff, John
Seaton, had formerly been her fellow-servant ; they had
been acquainted with each other for forty years, and on

the Ist Of Dpocmhpr, 1859. sh' told him tLpb.ob. niche'"
cv make a will in his favour. He went to his attorney,
Mr. Margetts, and instructed him to draw up a will to
that effect. Mr. Margetts accordingly drew up the
draft of a will leaving everything to Seaton, and the
next day took it to the testatrix at Brompton. It was
duly executed by her, and attested by Mr. Margetts and
his clerk, who said that there was not the slightest
indication of unsoundness of mind about her.

John Seaton, the plaintiff, stated that the testatrix
had told him she intended to make a will in his favour,
because he had sustained a loss of about £3OO through
the defalcation of a person with whom he had been
connected in money transactions, and had made an
unfortunate speculation in Eastern Counties Railway
shares. In 1858 she said to him that she had heard he
was going to get married to a housemaid, that she had
been acquainted with him a great many years, and that
if he pleased she would marry him as soon as she had
an opportunity. There was no foundation for the
rumour about the housemaid, and he accepted her pro-
posal. She was 74 or 75, and he was 61 years of age.
She did not marry him because she was unwilling to
leave Lady Olivia Sparrow, who had been unwell, but
the engagement continued until her death. He left
Lady Olivia's service in 1847. Her ladyship wished
him to discontinue his visits to the testatrix, but they
continued to see each other. After the will was read he
told Mr. Sturch that the testatrix had commissioned him
to get Mr. Margetts to make a will in his favour, and
that he was very sorry for it. (Laughter.)
Sir C. Cresswell—Do you continue to be sorry for it ?
Witness—l am not at all sorry under the circumstances.,
Ho told Mr. Starch that Mr. Margetts had made the
will, and took him to Mr. Margett's office.
Dr. Swabey said that he could. not upon this evidence
oppose the grant of probate, but submitted that the costs
of the opposition might be allowed out of the estate.
Sir C. Cresswell said that if it had been established
that the party opposing had been acquainted with all
the facts which had been stated to the Court, he should
undoubtedly have altc.wecl the costs out of the estate.
The fact that the testatrix at the age of 75 had made
an offer of marriage to Seaton was, in his opinion, such
an indication of unsoundness of mind that if. he had
been made acquainted with it he should have been fully
justified in examining the attesting witnesses as to her
condition at the time of the execution. The will would
be admitted to probate, and no order made as to costs.