The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judgs Or
~%er4 AND lIITCHINs r. FiNTER.

Dr. Soinks, v.('., and Mr. Inderwick, for the plaintiffs ;
rr R. ('ollirr, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram, for the defendant.
The defendant propounded the substance of the will of
l'rineis James, late of Penzance, a retired master of a
:,.-rehaut vessel, who died in July, 18601, at the age of 75.
e plainti(l,4 pleaded that the will had not been duly
i‘ecuted, that the alleged substance of the document was
•• its real contents, and that it had been revoked. The
deieudmit (the executrix and principal legatee), in reply,
..reneJ that if it had been revoked the testator was not of
1..,;(n.1 mind when the act was done.

.....
The te,tator had begun life as a common sailor ; but be
F.,,. hs frionled by Mr. Richards, a brewer and merchant
at Penzance, who appointed him the master of one of his
sviet.. In this capacity he continued for 20 years, and in
it he ..ssed some hundreds of pounds. At length he re-
tin,sl upon his savings. Mr. Richards took him for
a 4101 t time into his brewery, but eventually the
te.tator married Mr. Richardis illegitimate daugh-
te-. Mr. liieltirds made him some allowance, and
af:er hi. death Mr. Itichards's son (also illegitimate)
allowed his sister a house and 501. • year. In the first
instance the testator made a will in favour of his wife ; but
atter her death, in Ititi4, be executed another, by which lie
gave re. to the daughter of his Mother Henry (one
of the plaintiffs), and bequeathed the residue
t•. the defenshint, who was a niece of Mr.
Itiehanls, and who had been very much attached
to the testator's wife. After his death it was given out
that he had died intestate ; but rumours afterwards got
:,:last that there hail been a will, and that it had been de-
stroye 1 while he lay dying of paralysis. This led to in-
quiries. and then it was explained that the plaintiff had
Atka! his brother if he had madc his will. The testatormade
signs that he bad. " Have you remembered met" was
the next question, he made signs that he had not. The
will was then brought, and, ait was alleged, he four times
rased hi. hand as an affirmative sign to the question
whether it should be cancelled. The will wan then
destroyed, and under these circumstances the case came
!adorn the court.

(The cue is likely to last all day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Harlin.)
IN RR mu, FILM, AND CRAMITON.

. .
The bankrupts, Sir Samuel Morton Teto, Bart, 31. P.,
Edward Betts, and Thomas Russell Crampton, were de-
scribed as contractors for the construction of public works,
and builders, carrying on busineu at Great George-street,
Westminster. The adjudication was made on the 3rd inst.
upon the petition of Messrs. Warden and Sons, of the
Railway Iron Works, Edgbaston-street, Birmingham, and
the fir,t meeting for proof of debts and choice of assignees
Ira. now held. The court was crowded.

Mr. Ernest Reed, Mr. R. Griffiths, Mr. Maynard, Mr.
John Linklater, Mr. Lowrance, Mr. Kearsey, Mr. Brandon,
Mr. Clark, and Mr. Chidley, appeared on behalf of the
creditors and parties interested.

Mr. Linklater, who represented the London, Chatham,
and Dover Railway, said he tendered a claim for 6,661,914/.
against the bankrupts' estate. (Laughter.)
Mr. Linklater said he observed that the figures caused a
smile, but the circumstances under which the claim arose
were not of a nature to call for laughter. The object of
the company was to place their claim in course of judicial
inquiry, which they were quite entitled to do. He
wished to state, in justice to the share and debenture
holders, and the public, that the company intended
to prosecute the claim now made to the uttermost.
It was due to the bankrupt, to state that they
disputed the claim, and alleged that the sum of 343,0001.
was due to them from the company, but those conflicting
claims could be adjusted after assignees had been ap-
pointed. He would suggest the desirability of appointing
assignees without delay, as interests of great magnitude
were involved, and the creditors might be prejudiced if the
sitting were adjourned. He proposed that the Chatham
and Dover Railway Company should be allowed to enter a
claim upon the proceedings, upon the understanding that
it should form the subject of future consideration.
Mr. Lawrence said that as representing Sir Morton Peto
and Mr. Betts be agreed with his friend Mr. Linklater
that it was very desirable assignees should be appointed
without delay, in order that the interests of all parties
might be properly represented, but he objected to a claim
being placed upon the proceedings on behalf of the Lon-
don, Chatham, and Dover Railway.

Mr. Linklater—l must object -to Mr. Lowrance being
beard.

Mr. Lawrence—Then I object to your objection. (A
laugh.) I submit that where a claim of this nature is
made against the estate the bankrupts, if they dispute it,
hare a right to object to its being placed upon the pro•
seeding,.

Kr. Reed, on behalf of creditors who had proved also,
objected to the reception of the claim in any other form
than as a statement, as the rights of the creditors ought
sot in any way to be prejudiced. He said he could not
understand upon what ground Mr. Linklater's suggestion
with regard to the choice of assignees could have any
weight, as be did not yet possess any locus standi, and it
wu most important that independent assignees should be
appointed, as interests of vast magnitude would be com-
mitted to their care.

Mr. Linklater said he must decline to receive back the
claim after it had been tendered in proper form, and, if
necessary, he was prepared to establish it by evidence, but
be did not wish to take that course unless compelled.
Mr. Maynard remarked that the reception of the claim
would seriously affect the position of the creditors in the
matter of dividend.

After some further discussion the claim was entered
Upon the proceedings, ► note that it was disputed being
entered in the margin.

A number of proofs were then tendered and discsured,
and in answer to Mr. Kearny,
Mr. Maynard said it was proposed toappoint as assignees
the three inspectors under the deed, namely, Messrs.
Bishop, Fothergill, and Rolt.
Sir Morton Peto was then examined as to certain
bills of exchange which bad been accepted in the
names of Pete, Betts, and Co. and Peto, Betts, and Cramp.
too. He said that the firm of Peto, Betts, and Crampton
tame into existence in Ified, and was formed for the purpose
of curling on the works of the Chatham and Dover Rail.
way Company and other contracts. The firm of Peto and
Betts had been previously established for about 18 years.
All the liabilities in connexion with the Chatham and
Dover Railway to the amount of about two millions had
been incurred by Pete, Betts, and Crampton. The liabi-
lities of the firm of I'eto and Betts would amount to at
least 500,000/.
In answer to the Registrar,
Mr. Reed said the object of the examination wee to
ascertain whether certain of the claims which had been
made against the firm of Pet*, Betts, and Crampton, whose
estate alone was being administered in the court, ought to
be admitted.

The Registrar maid it would be more convenient for all
the disputed claims to stand over for discussion before the
eceamissioner, and that course was assented to.

In answer to further questions sir Morton Peto stated
that Mr. Christie, the cashier of the firm, had the manage.
went of the financial departments.
Messrs. Baring Brothers, who tendered a proof for
16.0n0f., held securities in the shape of bills of exchange.
Several other proofs were under discussion when our
'nod left.