The Express.
London, England, 1866-03-05 00:00:00

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

MARCH 3.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
HEWN W. WILSON.

Dr. Spinks bed Mr. Searle for the petitioner ; Mr. G.
Browne for the respondent.
The petitioner was the wife of a commercial traveller,
who was engaged for a house in the Borough. He monied
her in 1862, end, according to her statement, he was a
loving husband to her when he was sober. Unfortunately,
however, he was, she said, addicted to drink, end when in
his cape be was intolerably irritable. Oa several occasions
he had boxed her ears and committed other sots of violence.
At length her health became serioualy impaired, and it
was suggested that the MOM was the respoudent's profli-
gacy. On the other hand, the charges were alter de-
nted ; and it wee asserted that the petitioner's .Itht had
not arisen in the manner alleged. Than was also a plea of
condonement. _ _ _ _ . . .

The jury toned that the respondent had been guilty of
cruelty sad adultery, and there bad been no oondonation
of either offence oaths part of the petitioner.
The Judge Ordinary made the decree nisi, and directed
that the child aboold remain in the custody of the mother.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK OlRClJlT.—Lawiersz, MAR= 2.
NMI Plum 001131%—(Before Mr. Baron Marlin and a
Special Jury.)

TAILDT v. MIL AND Wl7l,

This was an isms from the Court of Probate to try the
validity of the will of the late Mn. Tailby, of Humberstone,
in this county. The ease has created a considerable amount
of interest from the fact of the position of the parties in
the county, the plaintiff being the master of the celebrated
peak of hounds known u Mr. bounds, and for-
merly high sheriff for the county.
Mr. O'Malley, Q. 0., Dr. Swabey (specially reimined), and
Mr. A. B. Stephenson appeared for the plaintiff ;
Beane, Q. 0., and Mr. Metcalfe for the defendants.
Is appeared from the statement of Mr. O'Malley that
Mr. Tailby, the plaintiff, and Mrs. Miles, the female
defendant, are the only children of Mrs. Elizabeth
Tailby, the testatrix. Mrs. Miles married in the
lifetime of her father, and had an estate worth
10,000/. settled open her. Her mother, the testatrix, sur-
vived her husband, led she bad two sources of Moons,
namely, a life-interest in an estate worth 7001. a year, and
2001. • year charged on the estates of her son, the plaintiff.
She was on terms of intimacy with the plaintiff, who
managed everything for bet and received the 701. a year
for her, gave her money from time to time as she required
it, and paid the balance into the bank. She saved a good
dialed money, and never called upon her son to pay her the
2001. • year. In March, 1855, she made • will,by which
she bequeathed one-fifth of her property, which consisted
of money that she had saved. to Mrs. Miles, sod settled
the remaining four-fifths on Mrs. Miles's children. In 1862
she made a codicil substituting Mr. Brown, a solicitor, of
Uppinghaza, for her previous solicitor, es Imam and
executor of her will. In 1863 she made • second will, which
is the will now in dispute. At that time she had several
convenstions on the subject with the plaintiff, and be
suggested that she could leave her daughter, Mrs. Miles,
1501. or 2064 a year, as she had at that time saved over
40001. She therefore left 4,6001. smelly settled on Mrs.
Miles and her children, and the resides of her property to
Mr. Tailby, the plantiff, whom, together with Mr. Brown,
she appointed executors. The witole dispute, therefore, was
about the aoeumulations of the 2001. a year, which the
plaintiff had not been in the habit of paying her, and which
he would be called upon to soorniat for if the will of 1863
turned out to be invalid.
MISCH 3.
_ " '

This morning the witnesses for the defeadant were celled.
The court sat at 9.30, but one of the jury was not prompt.
Alter waiting till 10.10 his lordship observed that unless
the juryman could give some good excuse he would make
him indemnify the parties against the costs, which were
enormous. In answer to a question from the learned judge,
the inspector of polies stated that nine pohoemen were
gone in search of him, but acne of them bad returned. At
10.96 Mr. Heine stated that the sine policemen had sue.
°coded to Godlog thou:amiss gestleoust at eh. Pill, *hat
the waiter had neglected to mil him, and be was tiles
going through the pings of a most elaborate toilet. (Great
laughter.) The gentleman thereupon entered Use court,
and took his seat amid much laughter, and the iris pro-
ceeded.

Hie Lordship, in summing up, stated that the first
question was whether the will was duly executed. The act
required that the will should be signed by the testator in
the presence of two witneesee, present at the same time,
who should sign in the presence of the testator. It
was clear that the testatrix signed in the presence of the
two witoesess, and they signed in the presence of the testa-
trix. He (the learned judge) did not know if it was neces-
sary that the witnesses should alga in the presence of each
other. but he should ask the jury if they did not believe
Mr. Brown, who said that they did so sign ? The next
question was, if the testatrix was of &mod sod disposing
mind ? The meaning of • sound mind was a mind free from
disease, and the most common disease of the mind was a
mind subject to delusions. A delusion was when a person
believed things to exist which did not exist, and which ar-
gamest could not convince him did not exist. The main
question would be, if she was of disposing mind, that is,
able to know that she had property to dispose of, and
that the law would do so for her if she did not,
and able to exorcise some judgment in doing so.
The next question was. if the will was obtained by undue in-
flame ; and as far as be (the learned judge) could see, there
was no evidence of undue influence, or any influence at all.
His lordship then went through and commented on the
feats as above detailed, observing that the jury would judge
whether it was • very unlikely thing that • mother who
was saving nearly MI. a year should refuse to take the
2001. a year from her only son, and that it appeared to him
(the learned judge) that Mrs. Miles was In • better position
under the will of 1863 thee that of 1855. If 31r. nifty bad
not perjured himself, there were never better reasons for
making • will.
The jury, after &short deliberatioe, returned • verdict for
the plaintiff, or, in other words, found that the will of 1863
was a valid will.
The case was not over till past 6 o'clock, and with it eon-
eluded the businese of the assize,.