The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-07 00:00:00

written authority, which he ?reduced. Hs taw!,
proved the moment the pre,.ont action was
cominueed by the plaintiff, the will was brought to
hini by Mr. Mtnnford and. Caioline Belsen.
Upon b.ing I admitted
that Cat:l"3o o:',* the proceeil,ogs to which he
referred, that took place in 1851, 1116 clerk made an
affidavit, In which he stated that the .2rc,F,ent plain-
tiff: .vas the landl!-:,td and occupier o 7 the property,
and that it was upon this affidavit that tho action
by the lord of the n-.Luor was put a atop to. It also
appeared that the action was defended in the names
of the plaintiff, James Belsen, and his sister Caro-
line, one of the defendants. He also admitted that
in the communications that took place in reference
to the former action between him and the steward
of the manor, he did not mention a syllable about
the existence of a will, and he accounted for this by
saying that he, of course, kept the opposing party
"in the dark" as to the nature of the defendant's

case.
Mr. Hawkins then proceeded to reply en behalf
of the plaintiff. He called the attention of the jury
to the very remarkable circumstances under which
this will was supposed to have been made, and he
submitted that if it had really been a genuine in-
strument it was not probable that it would have been
kept a secret for so many years, and he said that in
point of fact, down almost to the very moment that
the case was to come on for trial, those who were
conducting the plaintiff's case had not the slightest
idea that such a defence as this was to be set up,
and the will was sprung upon them almost at the
very last moment, and no opportunity whatever had
been afforded for making inquiries respecting it.
'll3e witnesses who had been called were, un-
doubtedly, apparently persons of respectability,
and he should be very sorry to impute to them
that they had committed perjury, but at the
same time he thought that the jury would be
justified, under the very extraordinary circum-
stances connected with this will, to pause before
they came to the conclusion that it was a
genuine document, and permit the plaintiff to be
deprived of what were undoubtedly his just rights
by such an instrument. He then said that even if
the jury should be of opinion that the will was a
genuine one, he should submit as a question of law
to the Court that, upon the evidence of the witnesses
Mumford and Gurney, it had not been made in con-
formity with the statute, and that it was conse-
quently of no value,
Mr. Justice Wightman, in summing up, called the
attention of the jury to the material points, and he
also read the section of the statute relating to wills,
and said that in order to render an instrument of
this kind a valid instrument, it was absolutely

necessary that it should be signed by the testator in
the presence of two witnesses, and that these wit-
nesses should also sign it in his presence and in the
presence of each other. He then observed that the
witnesses who had been examined contradicted each
other upon these points, and if they should be of
opinion that the will was a genuine one, ho should
then ask them to answer these two questions, first,
did the witnesses sign the will in the presence of
each other in conformity with the requirements of
the statute ; and, secondly; did the testator put his
mark to the instrument before they signed it, and
not in their presence.
The jury, after a short deliberation, answered
these two questions, the first in the negative, and
the second in the aMrmative.
The learned Judge then said that upon this find-
ing the will was not a legal will, and could not be
acted upon, and the verdict must. therefore be for
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. TRAIN AND OTHERS.

The trial of this indictment for a nuisance and
obstruction to the public highway in the Kenning-
ton-road, by the formation of an iron tramway, was
proceeded with at 9 o'clock.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and
Mr_ Joyce appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Bovill,
Q.C., Mr. Knapp, and Mr. C. Pollock appeared for
Mr. Train; and Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Garth
appeared on behalf of several gentlemen, members
of the Lambeth Vestry, who were included in the
charge upon a count for conspiracy, the act alleged
against them being that they had unlawfully per-
mitted the defendant Train to establish the obstruc-
tion and nuisance complained of.
The evidence that was brought forward to-day
was pretty much the same as that which had been
given on the previous day, and consisted of proof
that several accidents had been occasioned by the
tramway, and as to the general annoyance and in-
convenience that the public passing along the road
sustained by it.
The jury, after two or three hours had been occu-
pied by the examination of witnesses, interposed,
and inquired whether it was necessary to proceed
further with the examination of witnesses, to prove
the inconvenience and obstruction to the public by
this tramwaT, as their minds were quite made up
upon the point. It was also stated that many of
the jury were acquainted with the road, and were
personally aware of the inconvenience occasioned
by this tramway.
Lord Chief Justice Erle addressed Mr. Bovill, and
said he had heard what had been stated by the jury,
and he inquired the nature of the evidence he pro-
posed to adduce in answer to the indictment.
Mr. Bovill said he had a great number of wit-
nesses who would prove that they were in the habit
of continually travelling upon the road, and that
they had never sustained any inconvenience by rea-
son of the tramway.
Lord Chief Justice Erle said he was of opinion
that this would be no answer to an indictment like
the present, and that even if it were proved that 99
persons travelled safely, but that the remaining one
out of the 100 was endangered or put to inconve-
nience, that would be quite sufficient to support the
charge that was now brought against the defen-
dants.
The learned counsel then conferred together, and
it was arranged that verdicts of guilty should be
taken as far as regarded Mr. Train, and his sur-
veyor, Mr. Hathway, but that with respect to the
other gentlemen, the members of the vestry, the
verdict should he suspended until the legal ques-
tions that had been raised in their behalf by their
learned counsel, and which involve the point whe-
ther persons in their position can, under the cir-
cumstances, be legally included in such an indict-
' ment, have been argued.