The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-16 00:00:00

SECOND EDITION

PRIV \' CQUNCIL,

(THIS DAY).

THE GREAT WILL CAUSE.

GOODLAIf-E AND OTHERS v. WOOD AND

OTHERS.

This day being appointed for the decision of the Privy
Council being given in this case, long before half-past ten
the precincts of the Privy Council were beset by persons
anxious to hear the decision in this important case.
Shortly after two, Lord Lyndhurst, the Master of
the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Justice Parke, and
the other Judges appointed to hear this case, took
their seats at three o'clock, when Lord Lyndurst pro-
ceeded to give judgment.
The Noble and Learned LORD said the testator, James
Wood, who had been for many years a linendraper
and banker in Gloucester, in the year 1835 left
the whole of his property to certain parties, and
those parties now claimed the whole of the personal
property left by the testator, while those who
claimed the property of the testator which they
would be entitled by his will, if he did not
die intestate, claimed every thing under that will.
He says distinctly, " And I confirm all other bequests,
and I give all the rest of my property to my executors
for their own use." It might be said that there had been
an intermediate appointment of executors, and that that ap-
pointment had been purloined or destroyed. But us the will
disposed of real as well as personal property, it musthave
been attested by three witnesses. Considering the interval
of time which had elapsed it was scarcely possible to sup-
pose that evidence of the fact would not have been obtained.
All these facts led them to the conclusion that the testator
had named his executors before the making of the paper
B. That being their Lordships opinion as to the
import and construction of paper B, the next question
was, whether legally there was such an instrument at
all, and that led to the consideration, was paper A. made
in December, and signed by the testator. Of that
their Lordships were quite satisfied. They were
convinced by the evidence that that paper was in the
handwriting of the testator. It was entitled " Instruc-
tions for my will," and its language was—" I request
Sir Matthew Wood, Alderman of the City of London,
John Chadburn, Jacob Osborne, and J. S. Sermon, all
of the city of Gloucester, to be my executors, and I ap-
point them to: be my executors accordingly. That
paper purporting to be drawn up and signed by the
testator, the four gentlemen before alluded to were named
as executors. Again, that paper began by referring to
the instructions he had before given for making the
will. It began, " I, James Wood, of the City of Gloucester,
declare this to be my will, as directed by me in my in-
structions." If paper A were genuine, then the instruc-
tions for the will dated only the day before the testator's
death, and signed by him were also genuine, and the
natural inference would be, that in naming the parties
he meant those whom he had named to be his executors.
Their Lordships were of opinion that if the paper were
genuine that no reasonable doubt could be entertained
that both papers, considered together, made a will, and
were entitled to be admitted to proof. If the parties
named in paper B meant the executors already named,
they must also be the same who were named in the in-
structions of the day before, otherwise there must have
been some appointment in the interval, of a few hours,
and while no person was present, and of that assumption
there was not a tittle of proof adduced. It had been
urged at the bar, that the instructions for the paper A
could not be the instructions refered to, because in the
latter he disposed of his property not according to
the former instructions, but in a different manner.
That objection:did not appear to their Lordships to be of
very great weight, because the instructions were general;
but, as a matter of course, the will was more precise, in
that there was, not only no inconsistency, but it was quite
natural and of every day occurrence. Proceeding
upon the assumption that paper A was the act of the
testator and signed by him on the day it bears date
the will was set up. They were satisfied the paper
was genuine, they believed it to be signed in the
handwriting of the testator. But there was one objection
to it, the body of the paper was in the handwriting of
of one of the legatees who would take largely under it, and
it came form the hands of the legatees, and not from the
custody of the testator, nor from among his papers.
Thatjustly created in the minds of the Court
great suspicion. But the proof of the hand-
writing in such a case was not held to be sufficient, was
there in that case such evidence as to satisfy the Court,
that the papers were genuine, and ought to be admitted
to proof; and that by them the testator intended to leave
his property to his executors. In considering that
question it was not immaterial to observe that Mr)
Chadborn and the others named as executors
were upon the spot, but were not called in Ewhen the
will was signed—it was witnessed by 'this two
servants and a stranger—the inference to be drawn
from that circumstances was, that it was intended
that they (the executors) should take under it. It was
not material certainly, considering the evidence as to the
disposition of the testator, yet they might look at the
loose declarations made at various times, and the varied
instructions given by him. They could place
no reliance on them, and from the uncertainty and low
cunning exhibited in the character of the testator. But it
was in proof that upon all occasions when seaking of his
will, he had always named sometimes Sir M. Wood,
sometimes Chadborn, but always some of the four
gentlemen who were named as executors in the
will as the executors, and never any one else.
-But the most important precognitions were those proved
by Sutton and Stevens, to which it would be proper for
the Court to advert; and first, in order to show what the
motives of the testator were; and that would be seen by
the conversations that took place on the Ist and 4th of
December. In these conversations the testator referred
to the necessity of providing for the payment of his
debts. Sutton appears to have been on very friendly
and intimate terms with the testator, and he appears to
have expressed himself highly of Sutton. In reply to a
question from the testator, Sutton reminded him that
unless the public were satisfied that their balances
would be immediately receivable in the event of
his death, his banking business must diminish
notwithstanding the security derivable from the large
property. Sutton, in his evidence, stated, that he called
on the Ist of December, and saw Surman, who said to
him, "Sutton, you have a great deal of influence with
Mr, Wood. ikre have been wanting him to make a will,
and you should speak to him about it." Sutton then
went away, stating that he should call again. Soon af-
terwards, about 6 o'clock, Sutton went to the deceased
and found him in his parlour alone, and after speak-
ing for some time upon general topics he said
that it was time his will was made or words to that
effect. The reply of the testator was very short—
" Aye, aye, I must." After that the subject dropped,
and afterwards Sutton took his leave. Of the date
he states he was certain as he made a note of
it at the time. In the course of the same week,
he believed about the 4th of December, he
again called upon the deceased, and again reverted to
the subject of his making a will. The deceased readily
apprehended what Sutton referred to, and said, in reply,
" I have settled my affairs—my debts will be paid
when I die." Taking the whole of these
conversations together, it would appear that the impres-
sion conveyed to the mind of Sutton was that his debts
would be paid immediately on his decease, which would
only be the case if he had appointed executors.
In the first conversation the testator said he must
make his will, and three days afterwards he says
" I have settled my affairs," thereby implying
that he had appointed executors. The appointment,
therefore, must have been made between the Ist and the
4th of December, and that corresponded with the
statement in the papers marked A. and B.
Sutton added that the impression made in his
mind by these conversations was too powerful to
be forgotten, for it struck him at the time as re-
markable that the deceased did not say that he had
made his will, but only that he ' had settled his
affairs, an expression which, he observed, struck him
very forcibly at the time. He afterwards added
that .the impression made on his mind by his
saying he had settled his 4 affairs 'was not that he had
made a will by which he had bequeathed his property,
but he seemed to have understood from these conversa-
tions that the deceased had made a will so far only as
would secure the payment of his debts in the event of his
decease which implied the appointment of executors. That,
the Court was of opinion, materially confirmed the ease
of the appellants. The evidence of Stevens on which
considerable stress was laid, was of a character to entitle
it to some attention. It appeared that he and his father
had a cash deposit in the hands of the testator to the
amount of upwards of 2,0001. They were desirious
of knowing what the testator had done as
to his will as they might be put to much
inconvenience respecting this balance in the event
of her dying intestate. Stevens siated that he was em-
powered by his father to withdraw the balance, unless be
had a satisfactory explanation from the testator. The
testator said, I respect your father very highly—tell
him I have made a will, and left my property to four
individuals or four good men (he did not recollect which)
—they are my executors and they will pay you and
your father and everyone else. Two of them are
Alderman Wood and Jacob Osborne." Under that
assurance Stevens and his father continued to
bank with the testator. That conversation took
place in November 1835. It was not an
accidental conversation, but one that had been deli-
berately made, and was strongly confirmatory of the case
of the appellants. The ens wer of Mrs. Goodlake had
also been referred to, but the Court did not consider it as
having much weight. It appeared that she had been
alone with the testator the greater part of the
Monday before his death. Mrs. Goodlake spoke about
the propriety of his making a will, and he spoke a good
deal of his relationship with the respondent and her
son John, and of his being a trustee under the will of
his cousin John, whom he described as a very good
kind of man. He then said, " I shan't live long—it
will be all right by and by." The testator then,
speaking of his will, said, " don't fret yourself to
tiddle-strino.bs, Alderman Wood will spend the money
very properly. Chadborne has been my attornery for
many years. Osborne has been a faithful servant
of mine ; he knows all about it." Now that
walsoewrtshas,4is,c7ore b
ntfihoramtjatory of the two documents marked A,
and 8., and showed that the four persons named in these
papers
ecttsheofptaheertesmtaatrokre'sdloAv.e: The result,
by the testator on the day it bore dwaaste. signedl'hey
were therefore of opinion that paper A was signed
by the testator, and that on the day it bore date,
—that in paper B the testator referred to the instruc-
. tions and the persons therein named as executors--
that in addition to the proof of hand-writing, there was
sufficient confirmation of the evidence to satisfy them
that paper A was the act of the testator, and that the
persons alluded to in paper B. as executors had been
previously named and appointed in paper A. They
(their Lordships) must not be understood to say