The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-18 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov 17;

, .
The Court sat in bancdtill one o'clock, but up to that hour
no case of any interest canto on.
At one o'clock; the L(11173'011E1' JUSTICE came into Court
to sit at Nisi Prins. There were only two causes entered.—
The one was settled out of Court, and the other (after the jury
teas sworn) 'want referred.
.. •

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 17.
Bejbv Sr J. NicuoLL,
TIIE WILL OF THE LATE ABRAHAM AIONTEFIORE,

ESQ: DECEASED.
Dr...Trstsitn stated, in this case, he was advocate for Mrs.
Montdore, relict-of the lath.A.llontefiere,'Esq. of Stamford-
hill; and she sought to have • the testamentaty paper (he pro-
duced) propounded, as the last will and testament of the de-
ceastd. lle had much satisfaction in stating that the suit
instituted by her , against the other executors, watt perfectly
awicahle' and was only- fbe the pirrpose- of getting the sanc-
tion of the Court as -to the validity of the will, and the
ulthwite _disposal of the immense property depending on it,
'don/timing to nearly half a million sterling. The circum-
stances which attendedlins will made it necessary for him to
state that Mr. Montefiore, 'having gone -to France for recovery
of his health, was taken suddenly ill at Lyons on the 20th
of August, 1024, and died the following morning. When he
formulas end approaching, he called for a person named AVm.
Woodley,.who attended him, and dictated to him the following
i
prayer, in which he says, " I bequeath to my son, Joseph, the
11. ortlipark farm in-Sussex ; to my son, Nathan, the Brighton
farm ; and all my other property of every kind I bequeath
to my dear wife llenrietta." After it was written in French, he
desired it to be again written in English, and- had it read over
to him, upon which he called for a pen, intending to sign it,
but was seized with a spasm, and prevented ; a second anti a
third time he essayed to edniplete it by his signature, but was
unable to make It, and remained so through weakness until
the following morning, when he expired. - The Court would
consider the mere dictation of the party in this case sufficient
without the signature, and' grant the probate on it as prayed for
by Mrs. Montefiore.
Dr. Luslinewriax, on the part of the executors, fully concur.
red In paying a just tribute to the prudential motives by which
Mrs. M. was actuated, and he had to state why they opposed
the granting a probate on this paper, as the last will of the
ceased, or containing Itio final intentions. It appeared that on
the 3d May, 1020,i Mr. Mortefiore made a will, by which he he-
tieeathed 2.5001. each, to be invested in ale funds, for his four
children by the present wife, and, 15,000 L to his daughter
Marina (wlio had already 11;000/:, vested in her name in the 3.
per cent. Consols), and bequeathed the remainder of his pro.
peat, to his wife.' . A second paper was also found, supposed to
be executed in 1023, in which, after recommending his wife not
to enter again Into the matrimonial state. he directs a sum of
10,0001. each 'to be given to his children, leaving the house at
Stamford-hill, a life-interest .ititheft orthpark limn, and an in.
come of 6,0001. a-year to be paid to his wife until his two boys
elitinld attain the age of 18, and his two girls the age of-17,
after which she should receive 4,0001. per annum; with a further
liberty for her to will -awayloo,oool. at her decease. There
were other provisions for charities, and divers small legacies
to relations, but no provision for the residue of the property,
Which Was immense. To this will he appointed his wife' N.
M. Rothschild, Esq., and Mr. Montefiore, executor& The
Learned Advocate contended .that probate should be granted
on either of these, or both ; and ranted circumstances attend-
ingrOke the former distribution of
revoke
to
even, e
when he heard it rend, wished
the paper • propounded on the opposite side, which in-
duced him to think it was the intention of Mr. 3lontefiore,
his
prover dictatingty thator that
it to be considered final, as he stated to a servant, 'he wished
a provision to be made for William, meaning Woodley, and
expressed his intention of leaving him 1,0001. The residue of
the property left to the wife was by. this paper immense, and he
thought it at variance with the intention ever entertained by
Mr. M. to allow it entirelyto her, which was evident from the
provision he made for her m the two other wills. The Learned
Advocate contended at considerable length in opposition to the
probate being granted as prayed for.
Drs. 3ENNER anti Pititmatoute replied, and said it was
evident that Mr. Montefierc had the highest confidence in the
prudence of Mrs. Montehore ; anti that his leaving the residue
of his immense property to her was a consequence of this con&
dence. Ile knew the children were safely ent tusted to her
protection, and that in consideration of their tender age, money
already vested by him in the funds for their• use and benefit,
was a sufficient absolute provision, naturally relying they would
always reerive from their isarent that protection they were enti-
tled to. . parties would, however, cheerfully bow to the de-
cision of the Court in the final distribution of the property.
Sir Joust Niclioet.—Though I have no doubt at present
on my mind what the decision will be, yet, as it is an affair of
such magnitude, I will postpone giving judgment until next
Court day.
IN VIE GOODS OF •-••• PALLING% ESQ. DECEASTD.
Upon most full and satisfactory affidavits from Sir (forge
Tuthill, 31. D., and Dr. Powell, M.D., as to the state of the
party's mind,. the opposing party (his aunt) withdrew all op-
position to Mr. Palling's claim to the grant of letters of admi-
nistration to the estate of his late father, which the Court de-
erect' to him accordingly.

A FATAL TURN.LTP IN VAN DIEMEN'S
On the e2hth May last, James Miller and Hugh Oran, the
former a compositor, and the latter a printer tolhe Hobart
Town Gagette, quarrelled while labouring under intoxication,
and they retired to a dark passage to settle their difibreneea,
when Miller received a blow on the temple, or under. the ear,
which produced apopleiry, and he died. .A Coroner's Inquest
was held on the body, before W. H. HUMPIIREY, Esq., the
Coroner, and a verdict of 411anslaughter was returned against
Hugh Weer',