The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-03 00:00:00

Mr. Scrjeant Byles opened the ease and stand the eir-
eurustences out of which the action arose. 1k said that I
Mary Sunnis, the plaintiff, was the daughter of John
Somers, a small farmer is the county of Kent, and was cue
of several children. When about seventeen years of age
she became nursemaid in the deceased's family, and wh'ast
there it was her duty to take care of the children ared to
steep is the same room with them. Mr. and Mrs. As
were in the habit of going to see the children
after they were in bed, and unfortunately he there
sew the plaintiff, and nut long after he found his way to
her bedroom without his wife and iv:weed her. The
intimacy continued until very shortly before Mr. Aspin-
wall's decease, in December, 1850, ....I be appeared very
much attached to her. In fact he allowed her SO:. a year, and
one envelope would be produced which had contented 251.,
and on which envelope the accessed, as it were with his
dying angels, had triecee. the words in pencil, " very M—
ein the April." Up to yesterday the pleas upon this re-
cord were that the children were not Mr. Aspinwall's, and
that the document in question was beard on fraud, but these
pleas had been withdrawn, and the only remaining plea
, was that he hail not made the agreement. It would, how-
, ever, be proved beyond all doubt that he had, and this, un-
less evidence was called upon the other side, wouldeutitle

The plaintiff to a verdict. -
The agreesoant, as it WWI called, commenced as follows:
"To all to whom this precept shall come," and it stated
that James Aspinwall promised, declared, and agreed, for
himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators to provide
for the maintenance, clothing, and education of his three
infant sous by Mary Somers, and he thereby pledged him-
self, his heirs, executors, and administrators, during the
life of the said Mary Somers to pay her 501, a year, inde•
pendent of any expense of the children's schooling. He'
also acknowledged the children to be his, and expressed his
wish that they might be kept from want. The document
was dated the 9th of February, 1850.
The following evidence was then called.
Mr. George Somers was the first witness, and he stated
that he was brother to the plaintiff, and a clerk in the office
of the Woods and Forests. lie wrote four letters in the
year 1844 to Mr. Aspinwall, asking for some permanent
arrangement for the support of the children. The last
letter referred to a policy of insurance upon the life of Mr.
Aspinwall for 2001., and this sum was received by the plain-
tiff, after the death of Mr. Aspinwall.
Cross-examined--ile had always lived with his mother,
and they now resided together at No. 1, Park-road,
Regent's-park. his father was an artist, and was formerly
in Wilson's office, the agent for the Duke of Portman.
His sister, the plaintiff, lived with her father and mother
sometimes, butdid not unsay occasion lie-in there. After she
left the service of Mr. Aspinwall, she carried on the
business of a milliner and straw bonnet maker. 1 bat was
in Warwick-street, Pimlico. Afterwards she kept a to-
bacconist shop in William-street, Hampstead. She had
been allowed 501. a year. lie could not say what became
of the 2001. received upon the policy of insurance. His
sister lived with the family, and lie knew that the deceased
visited her once, and bad heard that he had visited her on

other occasions.
Re-examined—He knew of no impropriety on the part
of his sister except in connexion with Mr. Aspinwall.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins said it was not his intention to int.
pate anything of the kind to her.
Mr. John Somers, the father of the plaintiff, said ho had
eempied a farm at Hoborough, near Rochester, for tire
mars. This was about seven years ago, and he was now a
Ihruter at Kingsdown, in Kent. He bad exercised the
painting brush, and had in fact always been an amateur
painter. His father was an independent gentleman. Wit-
me hod five children. The plaintiff was about sixteen
yams., age when she went to Mr. Aspinwall's. it did not
Mime to his knowledge why she had left until a twelve-
month after that event, and then he learnt it by overhear.
Mg a conversation. Ile remembered seeing Mr. Aspinwall
in Francis-street, where his daughter then lived. Witness
watched for hint as he beard he had been there. When he
saw the deceased he desired him to desist from seeing wit-
ness's daughter, and he also wished hint to make some pro-
vision fur her children, and asked hint to write something
to bind him to do so. He said he would do it, and witness
, wished him to go to a solicitor, but the deceased add it could
be dune between tllClllt.elves. lie wanted the affair kept secret,
and he was willing to sign any paper witness wrote.
They went to his sou's house in Huntley-street, Tottenham-
sourt-road, and witness wrote the agreement. The cle-
ansed read it over, approved of it, and sign,d it. Witness
sad his youngest daughter attested it. Witness said it
should be stamped, but the deceased said it should be
punctually abided. by. Witness did not show the agree-
ment to any one.
Cross-examined—lle had been • farmer for seven or
eight years. Ile did not think he had now as much as one
acre of land, besides his garden. (A laugh.) He was
principally with his son, who had a farm of from 18 to 20
aria Ile had not lived with the plaintiff, except when
she ms at Kingsdown with him. He had been with her
in Leaden occasionally, and had stayed with her as long as
da works. The agreement was signed on the day on which
it boss date. He could not say on what day of the
wok it was signed, but he believed it was signed
abase one o'clock in the day. No alteration had been
Mae is it since. There bad been a little blot where the
word " February" was written, awl that was scratched
eat at the time, and written over. He could nut say
whether the document was all in one ink, for there were
several ink pots in the room. Witness brought the sheet of
paper, with some more, with him from the country. Mr.
Aspinwall appeared iii good health. When the document
Wee written there was nobody there but himself and Mr.
Aspinwall. His youngest daughter came in and witnessed
the signature, but she did not stay at all. Upon his oath,
the, were more iuk puts than one in the room, for his
eta kept more than that, as he was in the habit of drawing
plans. Mr. Haynes was at one time his daughter's solici-
tor, sad had written about her affairs, but he had never
made known the agreement to him. His daughter had
banded it to Mr. 111y11CS. He did not know that appeals
had been made by any of his family to Mrs. Aspinwall's
i
Catharine
Somers, the sister of the plaintiff, said she
was now 22 years of age, and was a milliner and dress-
maker. She saw her father and Mr. Aspinwall come to the
house, 11, Huntley-street. She was called into the frost
room ea the first floor by her father, and she saw Mr. Ali-
*wall sign the paper. She and her father put their names
as witnesses.
Close-examined—This was between 12 and 1 o'clock in
the day. Her father and Mr. Aspinwall wrote their names
with the same pen. There were one or two pens and two
inkstands in the room. They both used the same inkstand.
Mr. Aspinwall appeared in pretty good health. Hoe
father had been a 'tanner for 10 years. First at Hobo-
rough, next at Town Mailing, and then at Kingadowa,
where he now was. Her sister had lived in Park-road,
for nine months, and her mother had been with her during
all that time. She did not read the document when she
signed it, and did not know the purport of it till about de
mum* ago. She was in the habit of seeing her sister Mazy,
and had heard her say it was strange that Mr. Aspinwall
bad made no provision for her. She had not complained.,
want, but she had said that she had not enough. She hod
not mentioned anything about the paper, because her
father told her in Mr. Aspinwall's presence not to do so.
Re-examined—She had heard her sister say that Yr.
Aspinwall intended to do something for her as long as she
lived. The body of the document had been written before
she went into the room.
Mrs. Catharine Somers, the mother of the plaintlA,
said that she knew Mr. Aspinwall, and in March last she
called upon his widow. Witness did not then know of the
sgreement. She asked Mrs. Aspinwall to make some pee.
vision fur the children, but she said she could not afford
it. She mentioned the 2001. paid upon the policy, and tall
the plaintiff must du the best she could with that. fibs
said that Mr. Aspinwall was much agitated in his last ill-
ness, and wished to send some money to Mary (the plain-
tiff), sad that the money was sent. 11cr daughter brad M
Mr. Aspiawall's fur about 18 months.
Cremexemined—She knew that in October of this year
the plaintiff was not in circumstances, and that she
had Inaba te ewe pnilemsa to lend her some moony.
Wham know of the agreement at that time. The plan-
tiff bad mainialned the three children with the allow's.,
of 601. a year. She gut a situation at Hackney as lady's
maid, bat was obliged es leave it in councilman of Mr.
Aspinwall ping to visit her there. Mr. Aspinwall used
to give the plaintiff extra money besides the jOl. a year.
On one occasion he gave bar 904., and he had frequently
sent her presents of wine, poultry, te. He paid the
doctor's bill fur two confinements.
Mrs. Sees Stephens, the sister of the plaintiff, was also
examined, and the probate of the deceased's will was put
in. It was dated in April, IWO, and the porat =era
was sworn under 8,0001. The testator bsque
property to his wife, and appointed her sole executrix. This
piece of evidence closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjt. Wilkins then submitted that the plaintiff
nest be nonsueed upon the ground that the agreement could
net support any action, there being no consideration ex-
preyed in it.
The Chief Justice was of opinion that the case had better
goon, but he reserved to the counsel for the defendant leave
to move upon the point if it should become necessary.
Mr. &qt. Wilkins then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and declared the document by which it was sought
to sustain the present action to be • forgery. He also hoped
that when the whole case was before them they would, by
their verdict, relieve the family of Mr. Aspinwall from •
system of extortion aad intimidation which it would appear
before the ease was finished had been long carried on with
success. The learned eerjeant likewise commented severely
spas the various contradictions which the evidence con-
taiaed, and upon the improbabilities which existed in the
ease. Hs should be able to show them that long after the
date of the agreement, instead of the 601. a year being de-
manded, applications had been made to the charity of the
deceased and of his widow. Nor did the matter rest even
Isere, foe it would appear that the solicitor for the plain-
tiff had written to Mrs. Aspinwall, and asked for seat
provides for the children to prevent an application to the
poorhouse. The learned serjeant also detailed the various
circumstances which he should be able to prove, and he im-
plored the jury, whatever might be the consequences, to
give their verdict fearlessly, and according to the truth of
the ease.
The several letters referred to in the learned serjeant's
speech were then put in and read.
Dr. James Rutledge—Had attended Mr. Aspinwall for
saves or eight years before his death, and knew his hand-
writing. He dad not believe the signature to the agree-
meat to be kin. He usually abbreviated his Christian name,
bat on tkia ilsetusent it was in full. In general it was awl
like his wain. Is Febraary, 1860, be was ill with 10ch..,
moths awl viewegra et the stemma, sad was very weak,
hag kw odd walk in Taint eaaktaaee. He kept
Ns bows about this and generally got up about 12
ado& in the day.
Crew-uanined—Never kw, hint writ* his Christian
sign is tall. He believed that the eignatare sow handed
*Millais hie. Having looked at that doesatoat (the will