The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-08 00:00:00

ROLLS' COuRT.-('PHIS DAY.)

The Master of the Rolls sat in his court, in the Rolls-
yard, Chancery-lane, to-day, and was occupied the whole
morning with the further arguments on the part-heard
case of " Solomons v. Laing."

Nothing of any intert st occurred iu any of the Vice-
Chaucer) Courts.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
:sittings in Banco before Justices MA.ULE, CRESiWELL,
and WILLLi3IS•)
DOE DEM. STRICKLAND V. STICKLAND.

In this case, which was part heard yesterday, it ap-
peared that the defendant, Sir George Strickland, and
[leery Eustachius Strickland, are sons of the late Sir
George Strickland, who died at Boynton, in the county
of York, in the year 1808. The deceased Ba-
ronet executed a will on the 18th July, 1776, which,
in the course of the argument, was denominated " the
Yorkshire will," by which he devised certain estates
to his four sons, with remainder to the survivors. Another
son, the plaintiff, was born early in 1778, after the testa-
tor had executed his will, and on the 15th May, 1778,
the testator, by a codicil, provided for the plaintiff by a
deviso, and also by extending to him the benefit of re-
mai❑der, as to the devises in his first will in the event
of his surviving his brothers. In the same year, 1778,
the testator executed duplicate copies of this will and
codicil in London, without altering their original dates,
which were duly attested. Lady Strickland, upon
the testator's decease, handed over his keys to
his sons, who found the Yorkshire will in a
portfolio upon the testator's writing-table, and the
London will was discovered in a drawer of the same
table. Ia the codicil to the Yorkshire will the devise to
tho plaintiff was fuuEd to have been obliterated; whilst
in the Laudon will it remained entire; and the question
was whether the alteration in the one will was in-
tended by the testator to operate as an alteration of
the other. On the trial of the cause at York the ver-
dict went for the defendant. OA a former day, on the
motion of Mr. Martin (with whom was Mr. Cowling), a
rule nisi was ob:aiued calling upon the defendant to show
cause why there should not be a now trial on the
ground of misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge
who tried the cause.

Mr. Knowles, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Hugh Hill, now
showed cause against the rule, contending at great
length that the ruling of the Judge at nisi pries was
Mr. Justice MAULE, in giving judgment, said he
thought the rule should be discharged. The question
was as to the direction of the Learned Judge to the jury,
who left it to them first to say whether the London
will was a separate will, or whether the London and
Yorkshire wills, with the duplicate codicils annexed,
formed cue will in two part:? It such a question as
that was raised by the evidence there could not be a
doubt that it was a material question to be determined
by the jury. It was suggested by Mr. Hill that there
being a variance in one passage, not in question at all
in the ejectment, between the London and Yorkshire
wills, those wills were not strictly duplicates. But it
seemed to him (Mr Justice Maule) quite unnecessary to
consider whether they were duplicates or not in
the rigorous sense of the word. That was
really no more than to enter into a critical discussion
as to the word duplicate. He conceived there wits
nothing at all to show there might not be one will
consisting of two papers, which were contemporaneously
executed, and were intended each of them to be the
testator's will, although there was a variation between
them. The Learned Judge at the trial then left it to
the jury sly if those two wills, with the duplicate
ware intended to form one will, and if the

t\literatioe. and alterztioa in the one was intended
tc altt r the dispoLition of the property, or was in
eflect an obliteration and an alteration of both. Now,
inasmuch as with respect to that property, if each of
these decumants was intended to operate simultaneously,
and not by was' of superseding the other, then the can-
cellation of one of those papers was he (Mr. Justice
Mauls) thought on principle and authority a cancel's-
tioit of the other. Then the Learned Judge left it to the
jury to say whether these obliterations were intended by
Sir George Striek'and to be final as his then will u
he should determine on making another, or whether
they were made whilst ho was deliberating on
what will he should make. Now, that was
leaving Le, the jury the question of the intention of
the testator, which was undoubtedly a question of fact.
Upon the whole it appeared to him (Mr. Justice
Maule) that this case had been rightly decided, and that
the ruling of the Learned Judge at the trial was correct.
Ile therefore thought that the rule should be discharged.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and Mr. Justice WILLLOIS
both concurred.
Rule discharged accordingly.