The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-07-26 00:00:00

A REMARKABLE CASE.

In the Court of Chancery, the cause of "In re Alice Owen's
will" hu been heard. and was • petition for psyment out of
Court of a sum of £397 Consoli, on the presumption that •
pers. n named William Hurley, who had not been heard of
for • number of years, was dead.
The case was of some interest, as showing how easily
a person may di"appear in London. It was shown that
William Hurley, in the summer of the year 18.56, being
then of the age of 13 years and six months, and
in good health, left the house of his father in
Little Chapel-etreet, Soho, between six and seven
o'clock a.m., in order ti buy some firewood,
but he never returned, and although innumer-
able inquiries were made on that day and after.
wards by his father and step-mother, and, indeed,
by all the family, yet nothing could be heard of him
until one day in the summer of 1858, when his sister,
having gone out on an errand, came home haetily and
told her step-mother she had just seen her brother in
Wardonr-street, but he refused to go home. He ex-
pressed • wish, however, that his step-mother would
meet him at the Soho Bazaar the following morning
between ten and eleven. His step mother accordingly
went to meet him at the time appointed, but, although
she waited there for about two hours, he never came.
Hit father advertoed for him en veral times in dif-
ferent London papers, and made numerous in
quiriee in every quarter where it was at all likely
that he might be beard of, in order to obtain in-
telligence of him, hut in vain. Advertieemente
have also been inserted by direction of the Court
in e-veral newepapers vublished in Australia, New
Z -eland, and the L ailed St "tea, on the 63 potheeis of
the boy hay, ng emigrated; but every eff.ift to gain any
tiding. of him has proved fruitless. The presumption
therefore arose that he was dead, but there was an
entire abienee of evidence as to the probable period of
his death. He wou'd have attained the age of twenty-
one years on the 13th of February, 1861, if he was alive
on that day. The petitioner' were hie father and
brother, who had agreed to divide the fond between
them, on the aseuroption that one or the other of them
13:108t be entitled to it, it appearing that if the boy died
under age his interest became divested in favour of his
brother' and that if he died after attaining twenty-one
his father was entitled, as his next of kin.
Mr Charles Browne sopeared for the petitioner,;
Mr. Davey for the trustees of the will.

The Lord Chancellor said he was bound to hold, at.
coring to the ordinary preaumption of English law,
that William Hurley, not having been heard of for
seven years, was dead, although he might otherwise
be slow to come to the same conclusion, having regard to
the youth and good health of the boy when he was
last seen, and the possibility of his having emigrated
The petitioners' case was that one or other of them
must be entitled to the fund. That WAS true, but the
Court could not give the fund to either of them makes
he produced positive evidence that the boy was or was
not living on the 13th February, 1864. If no such
evidence were produced, and none such had at present
been produced, the residuary legatee under Alice
Owen's will migbt be entitled, on the principle of
" Underwood v. Wing" ( 4 D. M. G., 633). The
peti,lon must stand over for service on the residuary
legatee.