The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. TUESDAY, AUGUST 17. 1t.A41,

CORONERS' INQUESTS.

On Friday evening, a lengthened investigation was in-
stituted before Mr. Wakley, M.P., and a most respect •
able Jury, at the Marylebone Infirmary, New-road, on
the body of Mrs. Sarah Spencer, aged 53, a respectable
widow, nurse in the family of R. Reid, Esq., a gentle-
man connected with the Customs, residing at No. 16,
Portland-place. Thomas Grace, footman in the service
of Mr. Reid, said the last time he saw the deceased
alive was at about half-past one o'clock, in the afternoon
of Wednesday last, at the dinner table at his master's
house. He saw her shortly, after, with her bonnet on,
go out at the street door, and turn in the direction of
Park-crescent. He had not seen her since. She appeared
whilst at dinner in a perfect state of health, and he
saw nothing whatever unusual in her manner, which
was generally lively. Mrs. Mary Barnes stated, that
she was the female attendant at the Royal York Baths,
York-terrace, Regent's-park. About three o'clock in
the afternoon of Wednesday last, the deceased came and
said, she required a bath. Witness inquired whether
she would like it cold or warm, and she said warm.
Witness then asked the deceased if she would stay
in the waiting-room until the bath was got ready, or
follow her to the bath-room at once, but she preferred
the latter. Witness then showed deceased the bath,
which is about five feet long and two feet deep ; when
she inquired if they had not a larger one, to which
witness replied, " No. That was the usual size, and
she would find it quite ' large enough." Witness
having then arranged the necessary linen for de-
ceased's use left the bath-room, and heard her
lock the door after her. The deceased had been
in the bath one hour when witness knocked at the
door, but receiving no answer, knocked again, and the
result was similar. She ascmded to the skylight, and
having got it open looked into the room. She then ob-
served the deceased lying in the bath with her head
under water. She could only see the lower part of de-
ceased's body out of the water. She raised an alarm,
and Mr. Surtees, the brother of the late proprietor of the
bath, now lying dead, and the engineer, burst open the
door. The deceased was then discovered lying on her
face at the bottom of the bath, and her legs hanging over
the side of it, having on her chemise, flannel petticoat,
and stockings. She was taken out, and medical aid pro-
cured, and a vein was opened, but life was quite extinct.
The Coroner remarked that there was little doubt but
that the case was one of suicide, but as there was no
distinct evidence, an open verdict would be proper.—The
Jury ultimately returned a verdict " That deceased was
found dead in a bath, but whether she destroyed herself
intentionally there was no direct evidence to show."
On Saturday afternoon an inquest was held before
Mr. Wakley, M.P., at the George the Fourth, Hounslow
Reath, on the body of a fine-looking girl named Maria
Payne, only sixteen years of age, who poisoned herself.
It appeared from the evidence that she was the daughter
of Mr. Thomas Payne, sergeant gate-keeper of the re-
view ground at Hounslow Heath, under the Quarter-
Master-General, and lived at the lodge on the centre of
the heath. During the last three weeks the de-
ceased had appeared remarkably dull and strange
in her manner, and neglectful of the duties she
had to perform. On the morning of Tuesday last
Mr. Payne, on coming home about a quarter past seven
o'clock, heard the deceased in the garden retching, and
saying " Oh.dear ?" On going to her he asked her if
she had taken anything that disagreed with her, but she
refused to say, on which he fetched in a female neigh-
bour, when she was placed on a sofa and a surgeon sent
for. Just previous to her death, which took place the
same night, her father asked her what she had swallowd,
where she had taken it; and who had given it to her ;
upon which she replied, " I got oxalic acid at Mr. Ward's
myself and took it," and then added, " Father, kiss me,
you have been a good father to me—you gave me good
advice, and I am very sorry I did not take it—forgive
me," and she soon after expired. She was generally of
a very violent spirit. Verdict—" The deceased died
from swallowing oxalic acid, being at the time in a state
of insanity."
On Saturday an inquest was held at the Duke of Wel-
lington, Hackney, on the body of James Stubbings, a
respectable master builder, aged 61, who committed
suicide by cutting his throat, and otherwise dreadfully
mutilating himself. Joseph Hall, of Providence-place,
Hackney, said that for the last four months the deceased
had been in a very low and desponding state. His
demeanour was at intervals very remarkable, and for the
last few days his general habits were so eccentric that
his friends thought that his mind was affected, but did
not consider it necessary to place him under restraint, and
he was closely watched by his family and a young man
who slept with him. On Sunday morning, about 6 o'clock, a
messenger from deceased's son called upon witness, and
requested him to follow immediately to his residence.
He did so ; and upon entering the deceased's room he
saw him bleeding from a large wound in the throat, and
suffering from other injuries he had inflicted on his per-
son. Witness bound his throat with a handkerchief to
stop the flow of blood, and sent for a surgeon. Mr. Cro-
combe, a surgeon of Homerton, quickly attended, but
from the dreadful nature of the injuries his survival could
not be expected, and he died the following day. Wit-
ness had no doubt that the deceased had committed the
rash deed whilst labouring under one of those paroxysms
of pain which arose from disease of the kidneys.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of " Tempo-
rary :nullity."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

PRIVY COUNCIL, Aug. 16.
THE GREAT WILL CAUSE.
GOODLAKE AND OTHERS U. 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, and at three o'clock Lord Lyndhurst 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 as the will
disposed of real as well as personal property, it must have
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 is 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 Chadborn, '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 tvere 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 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 from the hands of the legatees, and not from the
custody of the testator, nor from among his papers.
That justly 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 no immaterial to observe that Mr.
Chadborn and the others named as executors
were upon the spot, but were not called in when the
will was signed. It was witnessed by his 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 speaking
of his will, he had 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 Sermon, who said to
him, " Sutton, you have a great deal of influence with
Mr. Wood. We 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, Satton 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 be 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 conversationt was too powerful to
N flirgOilen, 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, lin apPeSsion 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 affairs was not that he had
made a will by which he had bequeathed his property,
but lie 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' tf the
amount of upwards of 2,000/. 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 his dying intestate. Stevens stated 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 i
him I have made a will, and left thy prdr,tety to fear
individuals 61' tour good men (he did not recollect which)
—they are my executors and they will pay you and
your father
,and ever 4, one elsO, Two of them are
Alderman cl, ood and Jacob Osborne." Under that
assurance Ste vens and his father continued to
bank tOth Vile testator. That conversation took
place in November 1835. It was not an
accidental conversation, but one that had been deli-
berately matte, and WaS strongly confirmatory d the case
of the appellants, The answer of Mrs, Goodlake had
also been referred to, hut the bbilet did riot consider it as
having much weight, It appeared that she had been
alone with the testator the greater part of the
Monday befete hit dtath. Mfg, Oddtildlte 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 Niel it trusts" tinder the will of
his cousin aohri, 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 big %A satin" tioti;t fret yourself to
fiddle-strings, Aldaltill Nk ooti. wilt Spend tht Blf.r`'Y
very properly. Chadborn has been my attorney for
many years. Osborne has been a faithful servant
of mine • he knows all about it." Now that
thbeorienstdrautee
also was confirmatory of the two documents marked A
and 13, and showed that the four persons named in these
papers were objects of the testator's love. The result,
was this, that the paper marked A, was signed
by the testator on tile day it bore date. They
were therefore of opinion that paper A was signed
andthe
testator
toorn r
et
fheer r
eddaytoit
d personsio:n opf
aptthereinhere eßv i
dase
nenamedcxee,:ta so
r s,satisfyh ad executors-tbheeemn
that in addition to the proof of hand-writing, there was
1 that paper A-was the act of the testator, and that the
previously named and appointed •
in paper A. They
(their Lordships)
must not be understood to say
that it was a ease free from doubt. They con-
sidered, on the contrary, that it was • I d '
in' ove in
difficulties, ~which would be in many cases painful to en-.
counter, but after much ancl atte '
ntAve consideration, they
thought the balance of evidence (and by that they
personsstbui yoffin —thates t the
ein paper testator, B
ieanntda
confirmationlltehd, alluded

must be governed), was in favour of the appellants.
Next, as to the codicil--they thought: it was, both the
instrument and the signature, in the handwriting
of the testator. The evidence in the affirmative so
greatly outweighed what was opposed to it, as to satisfy
them entirely on that point. That evidence was so
thoroughly sifted by the bar and the Judges as to render
further examination unnecessary, and it derived further
strength from the conduct of the executors themselves.
They were intimately acquainted with the hand-
writing of the testator and everything relating to it ;
they saw the codicil and expressed no doubt of its ge-
nuineness, though this was in a letter dated the 13th June.
to the Mayor of Gloucester, written before they had
seen the original, but after they saw it they made no ob-
jection, and in a subsequent letter and in the search for the
codicil, they acted as if it was a genuine instrument, and
it was not until some time after that they altered
their course and treated it as a forgery. But
according to the rules of the Ecclesiastical Court, it could
could not grant probate upon the handwriting of the testator
where that was disputed. There must be some confir-
matory proof. The confirmatory proof must vary in each
particular case, and must be mere or less strong. In some
of the cases referred to in the arguments at the bar
the confirmatory proof referred to appeared very slight.
They (their Lordships) thought, however, in this case, that
in addition to the strong evidence as to the hand-
writing, there were several circumstances leaving,
in the result, no doubt that the codicil was the
act of the testator. It was in evidence that he
had it in contemplation to add a codicil to his
will, and this appeared also from the will, and par-
ticularly from .his question put to Mr. Chadborn.
It was, moreover, not probable that he would leave so
large a property to be enjoyed solely by his executors.
There was nothing which left thorn (their Lordships) in
any doubt as to the genuineness of the instrument,
and if it did not notice every person who might naturally
nave been the obect of his bounty, that might be ex-
plained by there having been a previous codicil
to which that one referred. There were several
tacts in proof of the hand writing. As an instance
they referred to the incorrectness respecting the name
of counsel. It was not probable that a person
forging such an instrument would have mis-spelt the
name of a person with whom he must be well acquainted.
So, as to the use of figures instead of words. A forger
.vould have conformed to the usual practice. These
were minute circumstances, but their minute-
ness added to their importance. Again, the
legacies left by this codicil were such as might
have been expected, and with respect to the
previous codicil, referred to, there was proof
that Mr. Chadborn was in the house of the testator de-
stroying papers at an early hour after his death.
lie admitted that some papers had been burnt, one of
which, at least, was probably of a testamentary character.
Now that was a circumstance which tended to weaken
the force of the objection. Then again, with regard to
the charge brought against the executors in the letter in-
closing the codicil. Would a person forging the codicil
make such a charge ? How could he possibly have known
or suspected that papers had been burnt ? These persons
were all men of respectable characters. No one could
have suspected that such an occurrence bad taken
place, and yet the charge turned out to be true.
What inference could be drawn from that, but that the
person who had produced those papers had had
some knowledge of the transaction, and that explained
the circumstance of the previous codicil having been
referred to. But then it was alleged that this codicil
had been cancelled. Now the onus of proving
that it had been cancelled certainly lay upon those
who opposed its admission. It appeared that
a corner had been burnt, and that the paper had
been torn through across the signature, but there
were no circumstances to show when this had been
done ; there was nothing to show that it had ever
been done by the testator or in his presence. It had
been argued that this codicil must have been cancelled,
because the other codicil to which it alluded
was not forthcoming, but it was obvious that
that codicil might have been destroyed with other
papers, but the present codicil was not found among
the testator's papers, it was in other hands; and,
therefore, from the fact of the other codicil
not being forthcoming, they could come to no safe
conclusion that it . was the testator's intention
to cancel the codicil produced. But even if it
had been found among the testator's testamentary
papers after his death, it would require further evidence
than any that had been yet produced, to show that the
codicil had been cancelled. It was therefore the opinion
of the Court that the codicil ought to be proved. There
was still one other question to decide, and that was the
question of costs. With regard to the costs, under all
the circumstances of the case, the Court was of opinion
that the whole of the parties, both in the original cause
in the Court below, and also in the Appeal to this
Court, ought to have their costs out of the estate.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Peter Francis Herbrech was charged with having com-
mitted a burglary in the house of a man named Bailey,
• who keeps a boot and shoe shop, a beer shop, a coal
shop, and a green-grocers shop.
The boot shop had been broken into, and a policeman
stated, that when the alarm was given he went into the
premises, and found a large bag in the shop filled with
boots and boot leather, and he observed the prisoner
making his escape amongst some buildings behind the
house. He believed that the prisoner had completely
got away, but a more experienced policeman followed
up the fellow and apprehended bun. Upon the prisoner's
person were found a half sovereign and 2/. 17s. 4d. in
silver, and the prisoner said, that if it had not been for
the beer-shop the boot shop never would have been at-
tempted to be plundered, and Mr. Bailey himself, whose
, property the money was, never would have been robbed.
The bag, which was just ready to be taken away when
the burglary was detected, contained forty pairs of boots
' and several pairs of boot legs. Besides the money, a
penknife and a file, which the prosecutor said were his
property, were found in the pocket of the prisoner.
The prisoner declared that he was led to commit the
robbery in the beer shop, in which people who were in
the habit of living by plunder were in the habit of as-
sembling. He said that but for such places, that and
many other robberies which poor devils were encouraged
to commit, never would have taken place.
It was stated that the prisoner could not exactly have
received his education at the beer-shop in question, as
he had been convicted of a burglary in Clerkenwell, for
which he suffered six months' imprisonment.
The prisoner denied that he had ever been known to
be guilty of any offence before, and he requested that
his Lordship would have the prosecutor's beer-shop
narrowly watched, for he knew that articles were to be
had there at an astonishingly cheap rate ; for instance,
he had been present when two legs of mutton were sold
on the premises for four shillings, even in these dear
times.
A policeman stated that the prosecutor who, he heard,
had resided in the neighbourhood for sixteen years, had
also his shop well stocked, and seemed to be a respect-
able man,
The LORD MAYOR—Prisoner, you must go and take
your trial for this olfince, at all events.
The prisoner—l am very willing to take my trial, my
Lord. lam only sorry that those who encourage poor
destitute fellows to rob, manage to escape.
The prisoner was committed for trial.
Kathleen Bryan, an Irish fruitwoman, and Eliza Bryan
a fine young woman, her daughter, were charged with
pot stealing. A policeman observed the two women
sitting at a,hall door for a considerable time, and on
obliging them to " move on" saw a couple of pint pots
fall from the person of the girl, and upon searching
found two more upon the person of the mother. Each
pot belonged to a different publican, and the mother
without hesitation, said that they had gone into each
public house and " left their mark," by taking away a
bit of pewter.
The publicans attended, and said that they had lost a
great number of pots ; but could not, of course, say
whether those produced had been stolen or not, except
from the confession of the elder prisoner.
The elder prisoner said, that she had taken the pint
pots as the officer said, and it was she and the girl that
were glad to get any where out of the way of starva-
tion.

The LORD MAYOR.—You do not consider that you
have been doing serious injury to these respectable men,
who are obliged to appear here against you, Why,
instead of robbing them, and bringing up your child to the
same criminal course, do you not apply to your parish ?
Catherine lir:r,u—Oh ! then, your Lordship, if you
only knew what it was to a parish for help! God
help us! it's us that did apply. I went with this poor
child to ax 'um for a little bread, and relieving over-
seer, as they call him, the div'll relieve hint! shut the
door in our face. Now, it's not long since an,;her 1""r
child of mine was flogged to death by the relieving 0;.9.-
seer, and I had to walk under the poor corpse myself to
the But it's all one. A mother of children with-
out anything to give 'urn to eat is the best judge of dis-
tress after all.

The LORD MAYOR asked the officer whether tiff,' pOpertl
was found in thepockets of the prisoners ? The policernan
said that he found some pence and duplicates for some
paltry articles of clothing upon the elder prisoner.
The LORD MAYCR stated that the conduct of the mo-
ther in leading her child into such an offence was pecu-
liarly culpable, and he:considered it to be most proper,
under all the circumstances, to commit both prisoners for
trial, The unfortunate daughter wept bitterly, but the
mother appeared to be satisfied.
Charles Diggles, the cutter to Mr. Moses, an adver
tising tailor in very extensive business in the City, was
charged with having robbed his employer of pieces of
cloth. it appeared from this case, that although what a
tailor cribs from a customer is called " cabbage," what
one tailor cribs from another is not called " cabbage" at
all, but is degraded into the more common but expres-
sive de,ignation of "robbery,"
Mr. Moses, who employs an immense number of hands,
iiherally, suspected for some time
and pays them
most, • --- ~;aces of the cloth
that his cutter appropriated sunor.,
handed to him to cut into coats, and other artistes
parel. Upon one occasion the cutter was ordered to cut
out eight coats, and a piece of cloth was given to him
to use upon the occasion. Mr. Moses soon afterwards
found wrapped up and pressed dose together, in the hat
of the cutter, a couple of pieces of the cloth which had
been just cut, the price of which remnants was about
six shillings. He considered the conduct of the thief
as ungrateful in the extreme, and of course a most dan-
gerous example to the men, and he was determined, for
his own future protection, to prosecute.
The LORD MAYOR—How much did you allow him a
week? Mr. Moses said that the prisoner had five and sixpence
per day, and had been in his employmen t about six
months.

The prisoner, upon being asked whether he had any-
thing to say, stated that he really did not believe the
pieces of cloth were in his.•ha.t at all, and that if they
were he did not know hOw they could have got there,
except Mr. Moses pot them there himself.
Mr. Moses—Why, you said when I took them out of

you hat, that you took them because you thought they
were only bits that were of no use.
The prisoner—So I thought. lam sure what I put
into my hat were only bits.
A witness proved that he saw Mr. Moses take the
pieces of cloth produced out of the hat of the prisoner,
and exhibit them.
The prisoner was committed for trial.