The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-02-21 00:00:00

A DISPUTED TITLE AT BRIERLET HILL

On Wednesday, at Warwick Assize, before Mr.
Justice Stephen, the case of "Berry v. Beckley"
was heard. The plaintiff is a road contractor and
stone quarry proprietor at Dudley, and by this
actioa he sought to establish his title to the pos-
session of a cottage at Kin gswinford, devised to
him by 'Harriet Matilda Beckley (deceased) the
mother of the defendant, Mr. Mellor, Q. C., with
whom was Mr. Natharer,was for the plaintiff; Mr.
Buszard, Q. C., and with him Mr. Graham, was for
the liendant. It appear.2d that the cottag and
other property was left to Mrs. Beckley by her
husband, who died on the 25th March, 1876. In
his will, which was dated the 28th May, 1868, h e
inserted the following clause :—" P ovided always,
and I do hereby direct and declare that in the
event of my said wife marrying again or cohabiting
with any man, the shall absolutely forfeit every
interest and estate which I have given to her by
this my will, and that the whole of my real and
personal estate shall thereupon pass to my son,
Benjamin Beckley." The defence to the action
was that Mrs. Beckley had lost her interest by
cohabiting with a man, that man being the plain
tiff himself, and the defendant bad consequently
taken posses don of the property in accordance
with the terms of his iather's will.—Mr. Mellor,
' having proved Mrs. Beckley's will bequeathing the
property to the plaintiff, left it to the defence to
prove their alleeation as to cohabition.—Mr.
Buszard then called a number of witnesses te show
that an intimacy amounting to cohabitation had
existed between Mrs. Beckley, who lived for a time
at 422, Moseley-road, Birmingham, andthe plaintiff
who was a married man living apart fromhis wife.
—One of the witnesses, a schoolmaster named
Underwood, said he visited Mes. Beckley at her
Moseley road resid-nce, and there met the plaintiff.
whom she introduced as a friend, at the same time
giving him to understand he was also her lover.
Asked how he was given to u:nderstand that fact,
witness replied that it was by her action. Being
pressed as to the nature of the action, he said it was
"a movement of the face"—(a laugh).—His Lord
ship: flow did she move her face ?--Wiiness : By
a wink—(laughter).—His Lerdship : And from
that wink you inferred he was her lover 7—Witness
Yes—(renewed laughter). Witness further stated
that Mrs. Beckley showed him the plaintiff's photo-
graph placed alongside her own in her album
Plaintiff and Mrs. Beckl-y called each other by
their christen names, and witness recollected them
standing side by side, plaintiff putting his arm round
her neck, and she remarking, "Haven't I got a
nerve ? " Witness remained there the night, and
the next morning plaintiff told him that Mrs.
Beckley had had a fit, and he had had to carry her
to bed. On another accasion Mrs. Beckley gave
him her husband's will, and asked him to read it.
He did so; and when he came to the provision yit h
.h. furnorl tea female
fri.-nd who was present, and said, "You see halV
am tied." Her friend replied, "Poor child, you
can have nobody then? "—(laughter.)—Further
evidence was given to show that plaintiff and Mrs.
Beckley were fr2quently in each other's cempany,
and that on one occasion they remained for some
time in a private room at a publiehouse which,
according to the defence, did not rejoice in a , very
good reputation.—His Lordship pointed out to Mr.
Buszard that the utmost extent of this evidence.
was to prove that ther 3 might have been immoral
relations between thes3 two persons, but that fell
far short of cehabi. at ion though it might be a step
towards it.—Mr. Buszard elected to go on with the
case, and called other witnesses, including the
plaintiff's wife. Their evidence having been taken
his Lordship said that though the plaintiff's wife
had been placed in so painful a position the case for
the defence reraained unimprovad.—The jury here
intimated that they had agreed to a verdict for
the plaintiff, and, with the concurrence of his Lord-
, Ship, that verdict was accordingly given.

the defendant's house heard the defendant using
very bad language and making a disturbance.
Defendant who had been fined for a similar offence
before was fined As. and costs ; in default 7 days.
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.—JaheZ Hom.r,
chainmaker, was charged with, on the sth inst,
unlawfully receiving a quantity of coal, of one
Joseph Bate, the property of the New British Iron
Company, knowing it to be stolen. Defendant
pleaded guilty. Police-constable Wickstead ,
proved the case and defendant was fined 10s. and
costs ; in default one month.
NEGLECTING A WIFE AND FAmmv.--John Jack-
son, a plater at a boiler works, residing at Birken-
head, was summoned for, "That he on the 15th
' July last, deserted his wife and family and caused
them to become chargeable to the Common Fund
of the Dudley Union. John Taylor, relieving
officer, proved that the defendant's wife and one
child had become chargeable to the Dudley ULden
and had received relief amounting to the sum of
£4 16s. Od. Defendant was ordered to pay that
amount and expenses, which made it altogether
over £(3, in default three months. On defendant
promising to pay AA next morning, and the bal-
ance in a month, the commital was:allowed to
stand over for one month.