The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1873-01-21 00:00:00

BTURIIINiTEK.

INCIDENTA DT ROAD MID RAIL. A well-knows
tril.ro'n up to his middle in .or and holding su
for very life to • bridge, 110 4, not to b. carried away
by the stream, his hone II modering about ; and •
noted huntiman riding "nth all speed in front of •
railway train, the whiltle of tic', engille shrieking and
the breaks pot on, were IMMO of the incidents of road
and rail which happened within a short diatancie of Stun
minder Newton Station last week.

Before We Ruminator Marlatraton, on Monday.
DrBIIIOTING • WILL.

Joke Woolfrey, of Child Okeford, was charged with
unlawfully destroying, on the 27th October let, at
Child Okeford, the probate of the will of one JILBIIIII
Arnold, doornail, formerly of Child Order& the pro-
perty of Henry Leonard Lo•lge. —Mr. Altin,on for
eom 1 dart ; Mr. Dash wood for defendant. —Ur.
Atkinson, In opening the cam said this wan a very
rebus charge It WU brought under the 24th and
2.lth c 97, 29. His client, Henry Leonard
Lodge, married • widow, who has aeon belierinx
yell to be the heir to certain properties order the will
In question. On the flit ()Maher his client
hal the probate in his poeseseion, end he inctutionaly
let the defendant have it when he ran off with it
and put it into the fire. The evidence was to be heard
to..e if there wee • arise fa in ore for the Arisen.
—Mr. Atkinson then called the complement. Henry
Leonard Lodge, who said that he was • labourer, of
Cann St. Rumbold, Shaftesbury, and was married to
Sarah Ann, widow of James William Wooifrey Arnold.
On the 27th October he bad in his possession the
probate of the will of J•mrs Arnold, his wife's late
husband's father. On the day mentioned he went to
the house of • man named John Rake, at Child
Circler& acornipanied by hi • wife, her daurbter, and •
young man named George Sharp. Whilst there the
, defendant Woolf rey cane in mad said to hi. wife. "You
are come down about thin property, aren't you," and
she replied, "Yes" Defendant said. "What have you
' got to do with it," and his wife said that she yr James
Atari'. widow that was. Defendant cud, "What have
you to show, you have nothing to show," to which she
replied she had, that be (witness) had her ler husband's
father's will in his ooat pocket. Defendant said he
liad the wilL He (witness) mid he bad it, on whir
defendant rid he should Like to look at it, to re
whether it oorresporided with the copy he had of it.
He then, took it out of his parr and gars it to the
defendant, who unfolded and read it, then rolled it op
and ran out of the book door. His wife celled to
defendant to rare tha will, but he said he shouldn't.
He at ono* followed defendant to hie own house (next
door but one), but when he got to the back door it we.
shut in his fees. Pushed against the door, and debut.
dent ran away from it Into the kitchen he following,
whoa he saw defendant push the will between the hers
of the grate, where a °leer fire was burning. He (wit.
nen) said, " you; you hare burned my wife'.
property." Defeadrt prevented him from getting to
the fire. His dangliter.in.law rd George Sharp came
in and Sharp took hold of defendant and oared him
bLic on to the settle. In the meantime his daughter.
In-law had taken what remained of the document from
the firs. They did not struggle, nor did any words
pass, before the document warn put Into the fire.—
Crosnermioed by 11r. Dashwrad : He bad been
married 18 months, and obtained the document from
James Arnold, his wife's son, about six months
linos. Defendant was thrust into the settle
while the will was burning, not before. He did
not threaten to burn down defendant's house
Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson: The remain of
the probate, es soon as extinguished, were banded over
to P.C. George Short —P.C. Short, stationed at Child
Okeford, swore that the remains of tbe probate pro-
duoed were giro him by Sarah Ann Arnold, at the
house of Ur defendant, on the 27th of October. He
banded hover on the following day to Superintendent
Lavender. The coomplainent wished him to take Wool.
fray into custody at the time, but as he thought he was
not amen likely to strood he did not. —Superintendent
vender proved receiving of the last witness, on the
218th October last, the remains of the probate he now
produced: which bed been in his pormadon ever since.
—Upon the evidence Mr. Atkinson asked that the ease
might ho sent to Dorobestsr.—Mr. Dtahwood thought
the Bench had • great deal to murder before taking
such • course, r it most have beat ksown to Woolfroy
that the original will was still in Use Court of Probate.
Having a good title to the properly Intl. posaession,
hie client could not have iradulently destroyed the
document. The question was whether Woolfrey did or
did not fraudulently destroy the rid U he did
not it would not ootne within the amening of the Act,
and there won] I be no prima facie case.—The Bench
were of opinion that it wee • ore for the Arises, but
aceepted bail—defendant in £5O, and two trundles in
1125 each.