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

house in the city of Gloucester. It was, then, for
the first time Alderman Wood became acquainted with James
Wood, the testator. The testator became ultimately n:uch
ettaehed to him, and through his instrumentality 11,F, Alder.s
man Wood sits made a member of the Corporation of Ohm-
cester. Two of this gentleman's daughters had subsequently
married in Gloucester, one to a gentleman named Maddy, and
the testator became godfather of one of her children. The
testator was so much pleased with Mr. Alderman Wood, that
he assigned to him an estate called Hatherley Court,
near Gloucester, and there Alderman Wood had re-
sided at the time of testator's death. Now it was
allowed on all hands that these four persons possessed
the principal confidence and affection of the testator. On the
2d December, 1834, the first testamentary paper was signed
by the testator. It was not attested by any witness, but it was
afterwards referred to by a document that was attested. That
document was in the handwriting of Mr. Chadborn, and there-
fore was thrown upon him the onus of showing that the testator
was acquainted with its contents. But their Lordships wouldsee
that in this case it was impossible that any professional man could
have been employed besides Mr. Chadborn. This document was
indorsed " Instructions for the will of one James Wood, of
Gloucester." Their Lordships would allow him to observe that
ahhotigh only entitled " Inetrttetions," this document was of
itself a subetentive will. By this document the testator desired
the four gentlemen above named not only to take possession
of his property, but to retain to themselege all his money and
genurittes for money, subject to payment of his
just debts, and such legacies as he might thereafter make.
Teis was a perfect will of the personal property of the testator.
It had never been alleged that this was nut the genuine clecu-
'tient. It happened that on the day after the date of this docu-
ment the testator was considerably indisposed. There was a
person named Ann Lewis, in whom he reposed great con-
fidence, who had resided many years in the service of his
cousin, and who had promised him at any time he
was seriously indisposed to come and take care of him.
he happened to be in his house on the 3d of December, and
testator desired her to go to Mr. Chadborn and fetch him to
his house. She went accordingly, and Mr. Chadborn came,
and at his request testator signed the second document of the
3d of December, 1834. It was attested as " signed and pub-
lished by the said testator, as and for his will in our
presence. Edward Swan, Ann Lewis, William Veile."
These other persons Were the clerk and coachman
of Mr. Chadborn, and were called on as subscribing witnesses,
the testator having twice read over the document in their pre-
sence. He should shortly show their Lordships repeated re-
cognitions of this testament, even up to the Saturday previous
to the death of the testator on Wednesday the 20th of April.
These recognitions, which were proved beyond all suspicion,
were confirmed by Mrs. Goodlake, who was that day re-
presented by his Learned Friend, Mr. Wigram, and un-
less his Learned Friend would state that his client
was perjured, he knew not how this part of the case could he
controverted. Things went on in this manner until the 17th
April, 1834. On that day a letter was written by Mr. Os-
borne to Alderman Wood, informing him of testator's illness.
This letter Alderman Wood received on Monday morning,
and he left London on Monday night, and arrived in Glou-
eeetet on Tuesday morning. It appeared that about two years
before testator had made Mrs. Goodlake promise that when he
was ill she would come and nurse him. On this occasion
she did come, but thinking him much better, she returned
home. He, however, became worse, and on the recommend-
ation of Mr. Alderman Wood, Mr. Cother, a medical man of
the city, was sent for. 31r. Cother did not think him dan-
gerously ill, but wished him to be bled, but this testator re-
fused to permit, On the 'Wednesday serious apprehensions
were entertained, arid he expired between eleven and twelve
o'clock that night. Mr. Chadborn was in London at the
time that the letter alluded to was received by Alderman
Wood, and could not then leave town, being engaged
before a Parliamentary Coinmittee, but on Wednesday the
Committee suddenly broke up, and he came down to Glouces-
ter att• nded by a gentleman of whom their Lordships would hear
much, of the name of Phillpotts. Mr. Phillpotts had been an emi-
nent solicitor in Gloucester, he was afterwards called to the lar,
and at that time was a alcinbcr of Parliament for the :ity of Glou-
cester. There was no difficulty in his (the Attorney-Ge:neral's)
stating to their Lordships that there was abundant evidence to
prove that on this Wednesday, by the advice dials.. Phillpotts,
there two papers, which had been hitherto.kept seperete, were
mast unnecessarily united, The one was in Mr. Vitood's
house, and the other its possession of Mr. Chadborn ; but it was
made out most satisfactorily that petal A referred to paper B,
and paper B to paper A, but moat Unfortunately they resorted
to this mode of bringing them together. He supposed that this
suggeltion of Mr. Phillpotts was made in the belief that the
testator would be found sensible, for at that time they were
not aware that the testator was so seriously ill that he could
not recover. These papers, Cline tusked, Mr. Phillpotts found
after the death of the testator in an eseritoire enveloped, and
etid.etneri " Will of James Wood, Esq., 2d V4l 3d of Decem-
ber, 1834:" It was not suggested that there was the
so palest erasure Of Ittblition to either document. All
that had been done was to affix them together. On the
21st of April instructions were Kelt to London to prove the
will of the testator, the papers were also seftt, end on the 26th
they were propounded. On the 6th of May a eatetet was en-
tered for .Ir. Helps, who now appeared in support of the wall,
along with Thomas Wood, as being next of kin. It
was, howevCf, quite certain that neither the one
nor the other was next of kin, and on the 4th of
June the caveat was la ithcittivan. Mrs. Goodlithe appeared
its the real next of kin, and things appeared to promise a fa-
vourable termination, when on the tith June there occurred
one of the most uneccountable and perplexing incidents
that ever had perplexed a Court of Justice. On that
day Mr. Helps received by the twopenny post the
packet Whieft he (the Attorney-General) held in his
hand, directed " Thomas Helps, Esq.," at his residence near
London. " Important.' This was put into the receiving-
ince in the Strand, and bore deft Bth June, 1836. The de-
ciiir.ent inclosed was torn and burnt Its one corner, but was
without any tit the soil that might have been expected had it
been thrown on a cOal fire. This document purported to be
a codicil to the will Of the testator, to give to the
Corporation of Gloucester the silfsi of 00,0001. in addition, as
it said, to a sum of 140,0001. which heal been given them by
his will. He gave also to Mr. Phillpotts the wit,: of 50,000/.,
to Mr. G. Counsel, 10,0001., to Mr. Thomas Helps, 30,9001.,
to Mrs. Elizabeth Goodlake, and Thomas Wood, each, 20,0001.
to Mr. Samuel Wood, 14,000/., and to the family of the latter
gentleman 6,0001., and it purported to congeal ell other legacies
and to give the rest of his property to iris executors for their own
use. It was dated " Glouceser City, Old Bank, July 1631,"
and purported to he signed "J. Wood." This document was
propounded by Mr, helps as a testamentary paper. At the
foot of it was written, in pencil, " The enclosed was
saved out of many burnt by parties I could hang, They
pretend that it is not J. Wood's handwriting, but many will
swear to it. They want to swindle me. Let the rest know."
This document was at once denied by the executors to be ge-
nuine. The Learned Attorney-General then proceeded to
' narrate the time and order at which the claims of several par-
ties were put in. The case came on for hearing on the 3d of
December, 1838, and lasted nine days in argument, and on the
10th of February, 1830, Sir H. Jenner gave judgment, de-
claring against the papers that had been propounded as the
will, but that judgment was entirely silent as to the deed. He
(the Attorney-General) had read the judgment of that Learned
Judge with the greatest attention, and after doing so he
felt bound to say that he was puzzled to find test the
reasons for that judgment. As far as he could judge,
be
should say that tl.e Learned Judge was swayed by two reasons
to decide against the validity of the papers. I'trst, he con-
sidered paper A merely instructions for a will, and that it was
extinguished by paper B ; and, secondly, that paper B
was defective —it was operative to destroy anything,
but it did not constitute a will in itself. Now,
lie was ready to show their Lordships that paper
A was not only an instruction to make a will, but
that it was in effect a will, and until another will
was made paper A would remain a substantial will. He hoped
also to be able to show that paper B was joined with it, and
that the two together formed the perfect will of the testator.
Another ground upon which the Learned Judge proceeded was
this—that they had propounded A and B together as
making the will, that they said they were annexed
by the testator, but that they did not prove all that they had
alleged. He trusted, however, that he should be able to show
that they had proved enough to entitled them to probate of the
papers, and, therefore, that all the rest was surplusage. The
Learned Judge below had animadverted in strong terms upon
souse of the executors for the manner in which lithe
papers had been brought forward, but that he con-
tended was no ground whatever for refusing probate.
The course that he should now pursue was—first, to lay before
their Lordships the evidence of A and B, being genuine docu-
ments; he would next consider their legal operation, and then
he would consider the objections that had been made as to the
conduct of the executors, some of which were certainly well
founded, but, even if they were, he did not see how
they could be brought forward to invalidate the
papers. They had been asked why the hand-writing
to paper A had not been proved by a greater number of wit-
nesses ; to which he had only to answer, that it had never been
called in question. All they had to do was to prove that A and
B were signed by the testator, and that they had been done
by several witnesses whose statements remained uncontra-
dieted, and whose characters could not be impeached. The
Learned Counsel read the depositions of these wit-
nesses at considerable length, all of whom deposed
either to seeing the testator sign the papers, or stated
their belief that it was his handwriting. Those papers
were further proverrby the answers the executors had put in.
From all the evidence that had been adduced, it was clear
that the testator had a very great friendship for Sir
Matthew Wood, and had even gone so far as to write to
Lord John Russell, begging of him to appoint Sir Matthew
a Magistrate of Gloucester, under the Municipal Bill ; in fact
down to the last moment of his life he had shown the greatest
regard for Sir M. Wood, and was anxious to do all in his
power for him. It was not, therefore, surprising that he
should have left him so large a portion of his property. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to read parts of the judg-
ment of Sir H. Jenner, in which that Learned Judge admitted
the strong claims of the four executors to the consideration of
the testator, but, observed the Learned Counsel, all that they were
to receive was given them by the paper A, and if that was in-
valid the gifts to them would fail. The Learned Counsel also
read different parts of the evidence, for the purpose of proving
that the testator had repeatedly declared his intention
of leaving to Mr. Alderman Wood and Mr. Chadborn,
twe of his executers, the great bulk of his property.
and contended that his declarations to various parties that he
had done so, and that his affairs were settled, were not, as Sir
Herbert Jenner supposed, only made to avoid importunity, but
were to be taken as bona fide declarations, and to refer to these
documents. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would
think he was justified in saying that both documents were
genuine, and that the one referred to the other. If B had
been indorsed on A would there have been any doubt? And
if, in such case, it were said that A had been abrogated after B
was written, would not such a statement be deemed preposte-
rous ? And if B had been fabricated after 3d December, 1834,
would not the person who had been guilty of such conduct have
taken care that it should have more directly referred to A, and
that there should be no doubt upon the subject? Could it then
be said that A was fabricated alter B ? But. some paper had been
written before B, because B, according to his instructions, re-
ferred to persons who had been named as executors. It was
ite clear therefore that some testamentary paper was exe-
cuted before B. They presented A, there was no other, and
why. then was it not to be considered as the rightepapa
Having thus established that B and
ul:i
genuine, and that B referred to A, he wAo
their legal obligation. Did they not fso
together con et
ru
consider
a w
llowed and
of the testator? A appointed the executors, B
Ifie
made a disposition of the real and per
were on the same paper would there 13eason;al estate. fact
thedoubt of
that A and B together constituted the will of the testator, or if
it was clearly in evidence that at the time B was executed
on the 3d of December A was produced and read over
by the testator, that he then recognized it in so many words,
and that then things were spoken to
by all the witnesses,
would there be any doubt that A and B together consti-
tuted his will ? But looking to the witnesses, though
they did not see A when B was executed there was
poll reason to believe that it :was among the other
papers on the table. But arguing the ease on the
supposition that on the 3d of December A remained at Mr.
Chadborn's and was not then produced, still if it was referred
to by B and proved to be the document so referred to, would it
not be equally effective?
Here the Learned Gentleman was interrupted,by their Lord-
ships, who wished to adjourn, and some discussion ensued as to
eating on Good Friday and the following day, but it was ulti-
' mately arranged that the Court should adjourn from Thursday
to Saturday.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Four o'Clock until Ten
&Clock tomorrow.