The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-12-26 00:00:00

A WILL CASE.

10 the Court of Probate, the cause of " Hunt and Clothed
0. Anderson," which commenced on Friday, Dec. 10th, was
resumed and concluded on Saturday. the list—
The teatator, Mr. William Anderson, was a retired
merchant living at Torquay. He had for many years
carried on business in London, and the plaintiff, Mr.
William Hunt, had been his partner, and now carries
on the business on his own account. The defendant,
Mr. John Anderson, a merchant in Manchester, was
his only surviving son, iris wife died in 1862, and
from that time until his death he was on affectionate
terms with his son, who had the management of the
whole of his property up to the beginning of 1867. He
was upwards of 90 years of age and very infirm, and
his articulation was so indistinct that during the last
year or two of his life he could hardly make himself
understood by any one but his housekeeper, Mies
Ilepzibah Clarke, him ursee, and those who were con-
stantly about him. In 1863 he executed a deed
of gift transferring to his son £20,000 worth
of property, and in March, 1864, he executed a will
giving leaseies to various religious and charitable
institutions and to friends and relatives, appointing his
non and Mr. Hunt and Mr. Gotbed executors, and
giving the whole his residuary estate to his son.
Under this will Miss Clarke took a legacy of £1.50,
and legacies of £lOO were left to each of the executors.
Mr. Clothed was a gentleman of independent property
residing at Torquay, and was on very intimate terms
with the deceased. In November, 1865, the defend-
ant received a letter from Miss Clarke giving ,
him to understand that his father had made her
an offer of marriage, and he immediately went
to Torquay and prevented anything further being
done in the matter. He then ascertained that Miss
Clarke was not the only lady to whom his father hail
made a similar proposal. In the latter part of 1866
he received a letter signed by his father, asking for a
sum of £6BO in addition to the sums which he was in
the habit of remitting from time to time for his father's
household expenses. He then went to Torquay with
one of his cousins, who suggested that a rwer of
attorney should be executed by the father, giving the
! WM the entire control of his affairs, as he did not seem
in a fit state to manage them himself. The power was
left with Mr. Clothed to obtain the deceased's signature
but it was never executed, and letters were read
signed by the testator, stating that he would never I
execute it. In December, 1866, Mr. Hunt paid a
visit to the testator at Torquay, and at this and two
subsequent visits of Mr. Hunt in January, 1567, and
in March, 1867, the subject of a new will was dis-
cussed, and also the propriety of taking out of the
hands of the defendant the various securities which the
deceased had intrusted to his care. The securities
were demanded from the defendant, who took
them to Torquay and deposited them with Mr. Kit-
son, his father's solicitor. The instructions for the
will in dispute were given in March, 1867. The only per-
sons who had any communication with the deceased
as to the instructions were Mr. Hunt, Mr. Gotbed,
and Miss Clarke. They passed several hours with
him, taking the instructions, and they stated that he
was angry with his son for having wished him to
execute a power of attorney and for having obtained
possession of his securities, and that he wished to leave
him nothing, having already made a provision for
him by the deed of gift ; but that he was persuaded
by Mr. Clothed not to exclude him from the will. By
the will, as ultimately drawn up, a number of lega-
cies were left, as by the former will, a legacy of
00,000 was given to the defendant, an annuity of
1;100 was given to Miss Clarke, small legacies were
left to Mr. Hunt's children, and the residue wan
divided between Mr. Hunt, Mr. Gotlied, and the
defendant. Mr. Hunt and Mr. Clothed were ap-
pointed executors, the defendant being excluded. This
will was executed on the 16th of March, 1867, in the
presence of the plaintiffs and of Miss Clarke, of Mr.
Kitson, who read it over to deceased, and of two medi-
cal men—Dr. Tetley and Mr. Stabb, who attested it;
but it appeared that Mr. Kitson had prepared the will
from the instructions handed to him by Mr. Hunt,
and never saw the deceased about it, except on the
morning of the execution, and the medical men merely
saw the deceased sign his name and had no conversa-
tion with him. The defendant remained in ignorance
of the will until after his father's death. A great deal
of correspondence passed between him and his father
up to the time of the death in November, 1867, but
all the deceased's letters were in the hand writing
of Miss Clarke, and were merely signed by him.
The defendant's case was that all these letters
were written by Miss Clarke at the instigation
of the plaintiffs and that the deceased had
long been utterly incapable both of dictating a
letter or of understanding the letters read to him.
He was perfectly well aware of his father's incapacity,
but his reason for continuing to write to him as if lie
were competent was that he did not wish to pain him
unnecessarily by treating him as imbecile. A quantity
if correspondence which had passed between the
plaintiffs an I Miss Clarke during the year 1867, was
relied on as showing that they were acting togetherfor
the purpose of getting the deceased's property out of
Ins son's hands, and that the will of March, 1567, was,
in fact, their will, and not that of the deceased.
After the defendant had been examined and cross-
examined, the jury intimated that they did not require
to hear any more evidence as to the facts, but wished
to have his Lordship's direction as to the law.
His Lordship saifl it would be more satisfactory to
hear the case out, unless they had fully made up their
minds.
The jury retired to deliberate, and during their
absence the parties came to the following terms :
Verdict to be found for the defendant on the plea of
incapacity ; the pleas of undue influence and fraud to be
withdrawn ; the plaintiffs to have their costa out of the
estate, and to renounce probate of the will of 1864, so as to
allow the defendant alone to prove that will.
The jury accordingly found that the deceased was
not of sound mind on the 16th of March, 1867 ; and
the court pronounced against the will of that date pro'
I pounded by the plaintiffs.