The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-24 00:00:00

CUITEIB V._CURTEIII.

Dr. levsu NOTONi;;;edthe Cenrri,tiiatei will made by asTeS
Curteis, late of Hackney, in the county of Middlesex, should be
admitted to probate. The testator died on the 30th December,
1823, leaving his whole property to his sister, by a devise made in
the following words :—" 1 give and bequeath to my sister .lary
my whole property, in consequence of the cruel and murderous con-
duct of my wile during this illness, and at all other times." There
was no objection to the disposal of the property wider that instrument, /
which bad been duly executed, but the widow of the deceased was
desirous that the Court should direct the obnoxious passage, which
characterised her conduct as cruel and murderous, to be expunged
from the will, when it should be admitted to probate. •
Dr. JENXE R said he appeared on behalf of the widow, but the
property left by the testator was so extremely small, that it would
not be Judicious of the widow to contest the validity of the will. On
her pan, therefore, he consented that it should be admitted to pro.
bate, with the omission of the obnoxious passage alluded to.
The COUNT was of opinion that the testament must be taken
altogether, and that no part of it should be expunged. unless us
validity could be disproved. If the widow only desired the omis-
sion of the obnoxious passage upon the grtmrch.f character, the
will could not obtain greater notoriety than it had at present.
MOON refused.

EUSTICK V. itateinew.
Dr. LestrINGTON appeared in this case on behalf of Elizabeth
Bawden, who was cited to appear and prove the legality Ilia will
made by Stephen Eusticic, who died on the 26th of June, 1823, or,
in neglect thereof, that the brother of the deceased, the Rev. 1). It.
Eustiek, would take nut administration to the effects of his brother.
The allegation of 3I ire Bawdeu stated that she was a lady of re-
spectable family, Rod that a mutual attachment existed between her
and deceased. which led to a treaty of marriage between them.
That the uncle of deceased, Sir 31. Noel. became acquainted with
the intention of deceased, which excited his disapprobation, and
upon his death in IMO he settled his estates upon the deceased,
with the ceradifion that he should not marry Alias Bawden. Soon
after, upon the solicitation of deceased, Miss Bawden resided and
cohabited with hint until his death, but no marriage took place,
because such marriage would have caused a forfeiture of Sir M.
Noel's will. Miss Bawden took the name of deceased, and he had
frequently been heard to declare his intention of providing atnply
for her at his death. When dying he was heard to say, that Mrs.
Eustick (meaning Miss Bawden) would.dnd herself as well left as
Lady Noel had been, for that she had sacrificed everything for him.
There was a mass of documentary evidence introduced into the
case. There was a will made by Mr. Et:stick in 18811, and another
in 1507, which was uncancelled, and found after his decease in an
apartment called the •` White Room." By this will Miss
den was made sole executrix atstt heiress to all the real and per-
sonal property left by deceased. There was also the draft of a will
drawn up by 31r. Edwards, the agent of the deceased, no the 3d of
January. 1811 ; and also a deed, assigning his household, property
and an annuity of Mt. • year to Miss Bawden. There was a sob-
sequent will triaile nit the Bth of January, 141. which was found
in the drawer of a desk kept in an oflice situated about unit hun-
dred yards from Mr. Eustick's residence. The signature hail been
taken from this will, but • codicil attached to it, dated the
nil January 1321, remained complete. By this will, a demise of
400 t. was made to Miss Damien, together with the household Jur.
niture, Arc. The deceased, at his death, left a brother and three
sisters, with several nieces and nephews--the children of deceased's
sisters. In answer to the allegation of Mimi Bowden, it Was
pleaded that, for some years before his death, the feelings of de-
ceased hail been altogether estranged from Miss Bawden; that
he had manifested the strongest suspicion of her, and the grewest
dislike to her family ; that he had fret:pet:lly declared himself t 2

1,....,#.,......nua.0164116.

THE BRITISH PRESS.

be the most wretched of Then, and expressed his regret at having
ever become acquainted with Miss Ilawden.
The Comm' inquired as to the amount of property left her by
Mr. Eu‘tiek.
Dr. JE N NEN stated, that there was no method of ascertaining
the precise amount, as no letters of administration had been taken
out.
Dr. Lrsift )(wrote raid, that the probable amount of the real
property was 3.0001. The debts due to the deceased were very
large. Ills real property may be taken at about 1,0001. per an-
num. In conclusion, the Learned Doctor observed, that there
were three questions for the consideration of the Court : Whether
the deceased died intestate ? whether the will of 1807 should he
considered uncancelled ? or, or whether the will of the Bth Jan.
with the signature torn off, but the codicil perfect, should be con.
sideted as the last will of the deceased. lie was prepared to can-
tend that the will of 1807 was uncancelled, and remained co with
the knowledge of the testator, and that it had nut been revoked by
any subsequent testament.
1/r. JEN xya, on the part of the Rev. R. Eustick, and the other
relations of the deceased, contended that the will of 1807 had been
entirely revoked, and destroyed, by the subsequent testaments, by
which the deceased altered the tlispositiou of his property ; and by
the destruction of the last of those testaments, which lett the de-
ceased without any will. The signature was torn off the will of
Jan. 8, 1821, which showed the affirm retvetiedi; and as to the
codicil, it must be held to have followed the fate of the will. Atter
the evidence was read. he should be prepared to argue, that the in-
tention of the deceased had been to cancel the will of 1807, and
that he had, in fact, died intestate.
The depositions of the several witnesses, which were very volu-
minous, were then read, and occupied the Court until three o'clock,
when the Court ordered that the arguments of Counsel should be
heard on the next Court day.

TILE NEW LONDON BRIDGE.
Yesterday the first Special Session* was held at the Town-hall,
Southwark, before the lord Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen, ac-
cOrding to the Act of Parliament for building the new London.
bridge, to determine upon the compensation due to claimants for
injury sustained by their compulsory removal from the premises
which must be pulled down to effect the formation of the ap-
roaches.
The first award of the Corporation that was disputed was one of
1,2001. for the good-will of the business of .Mr. IVihnot, a
alpinist and druggist, residing at No. 317, High-street, South-
wark. The claim of Mr. Wilmot was to the amount of 3,3001.
The claims for lease, premises, and fixtures had been agreed to.
The CostmoN-Switawr stated the case on behalf of the
Corporation, and proved the tender that had been made.
Mr. Sergeant WYLLIE again animadverted upon the outrageous
injustice of giving the Corporation, who were properly the defend-
ants in this case, the right of opening and replying, and trying it
by their own officers.
Mr. Alfred Fawkes, who supplied the claimant with drugs, re-
presented him to be a very skilful man as a chymist and druggist,
and stated' that the premises are most advantageously situated.
Ile did a great deal of business in the small and lighter drugs,
which formed the most profitable part of the trade.
Mr. Peachum and Mr. Warburton both represented the business
to be extremely flourishing ; the thoroughfare was admirably
adapted to it. There were eight chymists and druggists within a
short distance, and if Mr. 'l% ilmot were to remove, they would be
great gainers. Many eminent physicians sent their prescriptions
to him for preparation.
His books from 11123 were produced, and it appeared that the
gross profits as there stated, had been in that year 1,2341., from
which the sum of 1801. had been deducted as salary to shopman
and rent. During the last year the gross profits were upwards of
1,4001. The claim for compensation was made upon the average
of the net profits at three years' purchase. The proprietor had car-
ried on the business on the premises nine years.
The C074110N-SCROEANT, in reply, said that the complaints
about the city privileges afforded Counsel an opportunity of tacit-
Mg sympathy fur their clients, whose supposed sufferings were so
insupportable. Now why was it that Mr. NVilrnot had given only
an account of his dealings since 1823. the time when steps were
taken to get the new bridge erected ? Why had he given no ac-
count of the preceding six years—and why had he called no shop-
man to speak of what was done during the last three years, and left
that to be done by those of whom he bought, and who could only
form conjectures upon Mr. Wilmot's own statement ? Mr. Wil-
mot was represented to be extremely skilful in his business ; if en,
his customers would follow !nor if he removed to no extremely in.
convenient distance, and no excesaire charge ought to be made for
situations.
The Jury, after they had consulted for a considerable time,
awarded the claimant 1,5001. for his good-will, being less than one,
half of his demand, and 300/. more than had been offered by the
corporation.
The next claimant was Mr. Parker, who is a ready-made clothes
salesman, residing next door to Mr. Wilmot. He claimed 3,0001.
tor the good-will.
The Corporation tendered him five shillings.
The COMMON SERGEANT proved that the claimant was a te-
nant at will, that his lease bad expired in September, 1823, and
argued that there was no title to compensation.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he could prove that the landlord would
never have turned out Mr. Parker if it had not been for the Corpo-
ration, so that he might continne, but for them, in the regular re-
ceipt of LOW/. a year. Was it to be endured that a man was to
lose this profit and receive no recompense? Mr. Parker would
lose his business with his shop, far his goods merely were pur-
chased at the fancy of the passers by, who, if he way gone, would
pass on to some other shop, without taking the trouble to look for
him.
It was proved that for eleven years Mr. Parker had cleared 1,0001.
a year, and that his landlord had premised to renew his lease if the
old bridge was not pulled down.
The jury awarded the claimant 500/.