The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-06 00:00:00

tural Manure Company ; all these transactions
being the struggles of drowning men who made
desperate,venttires to retrieve themselves. Another
affair with which they were connected was called
the Leghorn Bank, with which they had transac-
tions to the extent of £BO,OOO, and it was credited
with £20,000 in the same way in which Lord
Keade had been credited. They paid £lO,OOO
into the Bank of England to the credit of Gerelli,
an Italian adventurer, connected with the Leg-
horn Bank, and the Rev. Mr. Bean said it
was deposited in the name of M. Gerelli, to give to
him an 'Appearance of substantiality, in order that
he might dispose of the Deposit Bank Stock upon
the Paris Bourse. This was a short and imperfect
outline of the manner in which the Deposit Bank
had been carried on, and now AS to the manner in
which Mr. Seaman joined the bank. About May,
1859, he was applied to by Mr. Hadwyn, the
saperintendent of agents, who placed the prospectus
in his hands, and Mr. Seaman, acting. upon the
faith that the prospectuses was true, joined the
bank, and received his appointment as agent for
Plymouth, in May or June, 1859. After the bank
broke, nothing could be more painful than Mr.
Seaman's position. He found himself avoided and
distrusted in the town, a meeting of depositors was
held, at which he was denounced, and he was ap-
plied to to return the deposits. He made efforts to
retrieve himself, but failed in consequence of his con-
nexion with the bank ; and he had been unable to
establish himself in any business since. It was for
these injuries to which he now trusted to a jury for
compensation.
Some documents having been put in evidence and
some formal witnesses called,
Mr. Seaman, the plaintiff, said I was forrly a
draper, at Plymouth, and I was applicd to bme y
Mr.
Hadwyn, the superintendent of agents, to become
an agent for the Bank of Deposit.
Mr. Collier proposed to ask the witness what Mr.
Hadwyn said and did.
Mr. Bovill, however, submitted, that it was not
shown that Mr. Hadwyn had authority to bind the
company, and therefore the evidence was not ad-
missible.
Mr. Henry Prior, a clerk in the bank, was then
called, and said—Lord Keane was frequently at
the bank, and attended board mtings. He became
chairman about March, 1857. S eeeveral books were
laid on the table before the directors, the bankers'
pass book, the cheque book, the attendance book,
the agenda book, the policy register book, and the
certificates for signature. The investment stock
book was laid before the committee, but I am not
sure that it was laid before the board. There were
four classes of ledgers, one of which, the capital stock
ledger, would show the amount of stock, and the
general ledger contained a profit and loss account.
These ledgers were placed on a shelf in the office
where the clerks were. Ido not recollect the
directors coming in there, but the books were there,
if they were wanted. They were frequently sent up
into the room of Mr. Morrison, the managing di-
rector. I have a recollection of seeing the general
ledger once on the board table. The Rev. Mr. Bean
attended meetings of the board and of the finance
committee. Dr. Clark attended meetings of the
board and of the finance committee. The meetings
lasted about two hours. Prospectuses used to lie
upon the counter for distribution. The directors
were paid for their attendanCes latterly one guinea
for a board attendance, two guineas for a commit-
tee, two guineas for a special attendance, and 62
guineas a year whether they attended or not.
Mr. Bovill—You may take it that Lord Keane
during the time he was chairman, received £7BO
for attendances.
Witness—The meetings of the State Fire-office
were also held in the same room. Mr. Hadwyn
used to come to the National-office frequently
when he was in town, generally daily. I never saw
Lord Keane and Mr. Hadwyn together, nor have
I any recollection of having seen Mr. Hadwyn
speaking to the other defendants. I have not seen
him in the board room.
A number of questions were put to the witness,
and several objections as to the reception of the
evidence were raised and discussed.
Mr. Justice Willes said it must be shown that
Hadwyn had authority to hand the prospectus to
the plaintiff, and thus induced helm to become agent
for the bank, for otherwise hould hold that
there was no evidence.
Mr. Wallis—l was a clerk in the office. I have
seen prospectuses in the board room. I have never
seen Mr. Hadwyn in the board room, but I have
seen him in Mr. P. Morrison's room, though not
many times. I have seen prospectuses in Mr. Had-
wyn's hands, hut I do not know whether he took
them into the country with him. I used to write
to Mr. Hadwyn whilst in the country by Mr. Morri-
son's direction. (A copy of one of these letters was
read, dated July 20, 1859, and acknowledged the re-
ceipt of money on account of the Sandwich agency,
and said that they had no satisfactory evidence from
Edinburgh or Glasgow.) I never heard of the letter
books being taken up into the board-room.
At this period of the case the further hearing was
adjourned until to-morrow, his lordship saying that
it would be convenient to allow the plaintiff's coun-
sel time to look at the books of the bank.
IRWIN V. SIR GEO. GREY.
In this case whit
.FF,Lcu IMBAgnkat
the Court, upon the ground that Sir Geo. Grey bad
not obeyed the terms of his subpoena, duces tecum.
His Lordship, however, said that he had no
power to interfere ; any application must be made
ai the full Court next term.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.)
DORMAY AND DORMAY V. CABLE AND OTHERS.
The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks were coun-
sel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Dr.
Tristram, and Mr. Searle for the defendants.
This was a suite instituted by the plaintiffs to
establish the validity of a paper purporting to be
the last will and testament of Mrs, Ann Wells,
who died possessed of £17,600 funded and other
property. The plaintiffs propounded the will as
executors, and it was disputed by the defendants,
relations of the deceased, who had obtained permis-
mission of the Court to appear in forma pauperis,
and who pleaded that the will was executed under
undue influence, and that the testatrix was not of
sound testamentary capacity when she signed the
instrument.
The Queen's Advocate, in opening the case, said
that the will in question was executed on Nov. 13,
1858, and that the testatrix was 84 years old at the
time of her decease. She became possessed of the
hulk of her property through the death of an only
sister, and she had no relations nearer than second
cousins, in whom she appeared to take no interest.
She resided at Cheam, in Surrey, up to her
death, and from some friendly feelings she enter-
tained towards the family of Mr. John Dor-
may, the senior plaintiff, she made him her re-
siduary legatee, and appointed him and his son,
the other plaintiff, her sole executors. It
appeared she was fond of making wills, and com-
menced this testamentary indulgence several years
before her death, and drew up and cancelled different
wills. She was an illiterate woman, and for some
time had been dependent on the services of a Mrs.
Ball, who was dead, and who had acted as her
amanuensis. She availed herself of the senior plain-
tiff's services in the transaction of her business, and
out of gratitude made him sole residuary legatee, and
that gentleman was most anxious to have the case
thoroughly investigated in order to free his charac-
ter from the imputation of any misconduct in regard
to the disposition which the testatrix bad made of
her property.
Mr. John Dormay said he was the senior plaintiff
in the suit, and was in business as a coal and corn
merchant at Wandsworth, and he also carried on a
gas work adjoining his premises. He was acquainted
with the deceased for about 40 years. The acquaint-
ance originated in the circumstance of his father,
who was a widower, having married a Miss Killick,
a friend of the deceased. During the last 30 or 40
years he was in the habit of visiting Miss Wells,
who lived with her sister up to the period of her
decease about 10 years ago. Mrs. Ball died about
two or three years ago, and had resided with Miss
Wells for several years. A female named Margaret
Spikesman attended on Miss Wells as a domestic.
Miss Wells haa a good many cousins. He com-
menced having to do with her affairs first in 1853,
in consequence of an application which he received
from a Miss Carr, who was living with his father.
He went to Miss Wells, in company with a Mr.
Richard Cull, who had been cited in the cause, and
who had been connected with Miss Wells through
marriage with one of her relations. (The testatrix
had made a previous will in favour of this party.)
Ou that occasion she said nothing about her
affairs, and when he saw her about a month
afterwards, she assigned as a reason for not hav-
ing done so that she did not wish to introduce
the subject before Mr. Cull. She then entered
into details about money matters, and said
that she wished to have another will made,
as Mr. Cull had behaved badly towards her by
dictating to her with respect to her property. She
added that her sister told her a short time previous
to her death and that she was to do what she wished
with her property, and was not to be dictated to by
anybody in reference to its disposition. She had
e s s
made a will in 1851, and he advised her not to alter
it. She said she was determined to have it ultered,
and before consenting to have anything
to
edo with
fromu ty
regardtoitawhenihnsaitsidtewdroitninregc,ewiyhiinegh
shu instructionsbgo e
her in her
gave him. He asked her who she wished to be
executors, and she named him and his sen • and in
1
reply to a question as to who was to be her residuary
legatee, she said "Yourself "
leave the residue of He said, " Why not
your property to some of your