The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-07 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNUIL.-(THIS DAY

WOOD AND OTHERS V. GOODLAKE AND HITCHINOS.
( Continued from our First Edition. )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said by analogy to what
took place in the House of Lords on appeals, he
had a perfect right to proceed with respect to the codicil. The
Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read and comment upon
the evidence given in the Court below respecting the hand-
writing of the testator to the codicil in question, and con-
tended that there was a vet y strong body of evidence of the most
respectable k.nd ageinst the codicil either being written or
signed by Mr. Wood. He also cited many cases in which it
was laid down that the mere proof of handwriting would not be
held as conclusive. Their Lordships would remember many
cases in which even the clerks of the Bank who signed the
notes had been deceived, even where their own names had been
forged ; and that during the warpapers were plentiful which were
so well counterfeited es to deceive the Custom-house officers
all over the world. 'I he rule requiring some circumstances
concomitant with the writing was a most wholesome one, and he
hoped would not be departed from on that occasion. His learned
friends supported the Codicil on the ground of the probability of
some or all the bequests. The parties fabricating such a document
would take care to have probability on their side, but let him
ask was that the case here? There wa; a bequest of 200,0001.
to the Corporation of Gloucester—that was dated in 1835, and
it was in proof that at that time he was very angry, be-
cause he had always been passed over in respect of the office
of Mayor to which he aTired. He apprehended that there
was abundant evidence to destroy the probability of the va-
lidity of the evidence. Where an instrument was intended
to be burnt, although it was not destroyed its operation was gone;
and the parties would be in the same position as if it had never
been brought forward. The Learned Counsel said that he
should not occupy any more of the attention of the Court, be-
lieving that if he had omitted any important point his Learned
Friends would not fail to supply the deficiency.
Mr. PEMBERTON then proceeded to address the Court en
the same side. The Learned Counsel commenced his address
by reading extracts from the judgment delivered by Sir Her-
bert Jenner. He was then proceeding to read a document in
some former proceeedings to which Mr. Hitchings was a par
when

Sir F. POLLOCK objected to the reading of the document
for the purpose of influencing the decision of the Court.
The Learned Judges overruled the objection.
Mr. PEMBERTON resumed. The counsel for Mr. Hitch-
ings had not called in question in the least the fact of the sig-
nature to paper, A being the signature of the testator.
Upon what ground then was that paper questioned ? Upon
the ground that Mr. Chadborn, who wrote that paper
was beneficially interested under it. If the signa-
ture were good ; if the competency were good ; if
an undue influence were nowheic suggested; it mattered not
one farthing who wrote it. It was only necessary to prove that
the testator, when he signed the paper, was acquainted with its
contents, and aware of their effect. The Learned Counsel
then cited the ease of Barrett and Britlin, Ist v. of
Curtis, p. 613. In this case there was the most conclusive
testimony of the only fact necessary to be proved, intention to
benefit ,sir. Chadborn. The Learned Judge had made the
fact of Mr. Chadborn being an executor beneficially
interested a ground for looking with suspicion upon
the will. The question was, did B refer to A. He
(Mr. Pemberton) contended that if there were no sig-
nature, no proof whatever—if it were sufficiently established
that B referred to A, then A was as completely established as if
B itself had been established by two witnesses. Upon this part
of the case he must protest most strongly against the deci-
sion of the Learned Judge. It was in contradiction of the
principle universally acted upon. The rule was that you must
have a distinct reference to some paper or writing;
you must have a paper already produced which tallied with
that description, and then if there were no other paper or
writing which also tallied with that description, the reference
was sufficient. That was the principle acted upon in all the
cases it had been cited by his Learned Friend the Attorney-
General.
Ihe Learned Counsel was proceeding to refer to the case of
Wood and Wood, Ist Phillimore, 357, when it being Four
o'Clock the Court adjourned the further hearing of the argu-
ment until to-morrow.