The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-15 00:00:00

EWING, irtT y

<: i__s~

~;'~~<~s

—r- -fir CAm.:;!.
The following is a succin9t account of the recent trial
n the Court of Queen's Bench (Turner and others v.

Maule), by the verdict of which a poor family have un-
expectedly come into possession of nearly 70,0001. The
case was concluded on Thursday.
The plaintiffs, thirteen in number, were the brothers
and sisters, and nephews and nieces,. of Mr. John
Turner, of 13, Huntley-street, Brunswick-square, de-

ceased ; and the defendant was Mr. Maule, the Solicitor
to the Treasury. The deceased died on the 30th of
January, 1842, intestate and insane; and on the 25th of
November,lB43, letters of administration of his personal

estata were granted to Mr. Maule as nominee of the
Crown. The plaintiffs claimed to be the next of kin,
or the representatives of the next of kin of the intestate
living at his decease ; and this was an issue directed by
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce to try these two ques-
tions, affirmed by the plaintiffs and denied by the de-
fendants :-1. Whether John Turner, to whom the de-
fendant has administered, was the son of John Turner

and Elizabeth his wife, formerly of the parishes of
Livermere Magna, and Fornham St. Martin, Suffolk, or
of one of those parishes ? 2. Whether the said John
Turner was the person baptised under the name of
Theophilus, on the 14th of January, 1763, at Bad well
Ash, Suffolk ? _ _ _ .

Sir F. THESIGER addressed the jury for the plaintiffs.
They were aware whenever any person died intestate
the Crown was entitled to the whole of his property.

It appeared, then, that on the 30th of January, 1842, a
person known as John Turner, then about 80 years of
age, died at a house, No. 13 Huntley-street, Brunswick-
square. Upon his death the Crown, suggesting that the
deceased had left no relations, took possession of the
whole of his property, amounting, it was admitted, to
upwards of 60,0001. Prior to his death a commission of
lanacy had been issued to inquire into the state of mind
of Mr. Turner, and ten months before his death he had
been found to be a lunatic, and died in that state. Ad-

ministration of his property was subsequently granted
to the Solicitor to the Treasury, who was the nominal
defendant in the present issue ; but from several circum-
stances which came to the knowledge of different poor
persons in the county of Suffolk, they were led to be-
lieve that John Turner, the deceased, was identical with

their relation Theophilus Turner, who many years ago
had left his native village in Suffolk. Accordingly, with
the scanty means which they had at their disposal,
they filed a bill in Chancery against Mr. Maule, and
declared that they were the next of kin of the de-
ceased, and were entitled to the whole of his per-
sonal ,estate. Mr. Thuile put in an answer to that

bill, from which it appeared that the Crown had no
knowledge whatever of who John Turner was, or who

his father or mother were, or whether or not he had any
relations. The matter was then referred to one of the
Masters of the Court of Chancery, before whom an in-
vestigation had taken place, and witnesses were examined
on the part of the plaintiffs, in order to establish that
they were the next of kin of the deceased. New facts
were thus brought to light, and from quarters in which
it was quite unexpected ; and in the result such a body
of evidence was discovered as would establish in the most
distinct manner the relationship of the plaintiffs, and
that, they were entitled to the property. The point
which he (Sir F. Thesiger) undertook to prove was, that
Mr. John Turner, deceased, was the same person as
Theophilus Turner, the relation of the plaintiffs ; and
in order to do this it would be necessary to call the at-
tention of the jury to the history of the Suffolk family.
In the year 1744 there lived at Livermore, in Suffolk,
one John Turner, a gardener, who in that year made
his will, and left a legacy to John Turner, and 101.
to the clergyman of Livermere for his son Theophilus;
and in case Theophilus should be dead, or should never
return home to Livermere, that sum was to be paid to
Ann, the daughter of Diana, the testator's sister. That
will showed that old John Turner had a son Theophilus,
who was absent. In 1755 John Turner, the son of old
John, married Elizabeth Hilder at Livermere, and had
a numerous family, and lived at various places in the
neighbourhood of each other in the county of Suffolk.
They had three children at Livermere, and then removed
to Badwell Ash, about three miles off; and there, in the
year 1763, Theophilus was born, whom he (Sir F. Thesi-
ger) would prove to be identical with the deceased, John
Turner, of Huntley-street. His baptismal register was
dated the 14th of January, 1763. The family afterwards
returned to Livermere, where a daughter, Sarah, was
born, who was baptised on the 26th of December, 1764.
The ,family then removed to Fornham St. Martin, where
another son, George Hilder Turner, one of the plain-
tiffs, was born, and baptised on the 28th of November,
1788, John Turner, the father of this family, became
the gardener to the Rev. Dr. Ord, who lived at Forn-
ham. St. Martin, and his son Theophilus, being a boy
of quick parts, went to a school kept by a Mr. Plum, an
excellent writing master, and afterwards, by the kind-
ness of Dr. Ord, he was sent to a school at Bury St. Ed-
munds, where it was said he received a classical educa-
tion. It appeared that Theophilus was at one time in-
tended for the sea service, for Dr. Ord used familiarly to
call him " Jack," and "Jack the sailor;" but, having
taken some fruit out of Dr. Ord's garden, a quarrel took
place, and he left Fornham St. Martin, and afterwards
obtained, through Dr. Ord, a situation as teacher in a
school near London. At the time when Theophilus left his
homein Suffolk there was reason to believe that he dropped
the extraordinary name of Tneophilus, by which he had
been distinguished, and from that period till the time of
his death he held no communication with his family in
Suffolk. It would, however, be shown from the incidents
in the life of the deceased that the two persons were
identical. The deceased Mr. Turner was first found as
a clerk in the Ordnance-office in the Tower, an appoint-
ment which he owed to the patronage of Sir Charles
Frederick, the Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, as
appeared from a book belonging to Mr. John Turner,
the deceased, in which was entered a copy of a letter
written by Sir Charles Frederick to his successor, the
lion. Mr. Pelham. Mr. Turner continued in the Ord-
nance-office till the year 1787, when be became a clerk
in the Sun Fire-office at Cornhill, and in 1805 removed
to the branch office in Craig's-court, where he acted as
chief clerk or secretary, and in 1825 retired on a pension
Of 200/. a year. While in the Sun Fire-office Mr. Turner
obtained a share of a prize in a lottery, and this was the
inundation of his fortune, which subsequently amounted
to 60,4001. From the year 1807 to 1824 Mr. Turner
lodged with a Mrs. De Russiere, at 120, Great Russell-
street; and from 1824 till his death at 13, Huntley-
street, Brunswick square ; in the first instance with the
tenant, Mrs. Thurstone, and on the death of the tenant
he occupied the whole of the house himself. He was a
person of remarkable appearance, about five feet six
inches in height, and very particular in the dress-
ing of his hair, which he wore powdered. He was
marked with the small-pox, and there was an appear-
stice of an injury in his eye or eyebrow, which quite
corresponded with the description of Theophilus, who
when young had scorched his eye with gunpowder. He'
wore tight pantaloons, and had a peculiar shrugging of
his shoulders, which was characteristic of him. His
habits were peculiar, and in some respects inconsistent.
He was in the habit of visiting Mr. Fitzgerald, a gentle-
man residing in Portland-place, where he met good com-
pany, and twice a year visited Mr. Fitzgerald's establish-
ment in Suffolk, where he enjoyed himself in shooting.
Mr. Fitzgerald was also in the habit of sending up game
for Mr. Turner, of the Sun Fire-office, who ysed to go
for it himself to the White Horse in Fetter-lane, or to
the White Swan, in Skinner-street. When in the society
of persons who were above his own rank Mr. Turner
was rather reserved as to his origin and family ; but
when he was in the society of those below him he talked
of his early history, and made those communications as
to his history which would be the polar star to guide the
jury to their determination. If Mr. Turner was Theo-
philus, he left Suffolk nearly seventy years ago, and it
was unnecessary to remind the jury how difficult it was
for the plaintiffs in their humble station to prove' their
relationship ; but be (Sir F. Thesiger) undera.ook to
prove that John Turner, who died in January, 1842
Ord.
Sixteen Turner, the son of the gardener of Dr.
Sixteen witnesses, most of them unconnected with each
other, would establish the fact. It would be proved by
six witnesses that they had heard him say theathaed
said`
that son of a gardener, and one would prove that _ r
Mr
that his father was the gardener of Dr..o d
Turner had been a schoolfellow at Bury with thelf Rev.
.
Mr. White, vicar of Allhallows, Barking.
Turner was Theophilus, he must have been a teacher in
a school; and it would be proved that on more than one
occasion he had stated that he had been a teacher in
a school near London. If he was Theophilus, he must
have had a sister Sarah; and it would be proved that he
had spoken of a sister of that name. Dr. Ord had
called Theophilus by the name of " Jack," and
.. Jack the sailor; and it would be shown that Mr.
Turner called a boy, whom he took some notice of, by
the same names. Thus it will be shown that if Theo-
philus was born in Suffolk, so was John; if Theophilus
was sent to a school at Bury, so was John; if Theophilus
had a sister named Sarah, so had John; if Theophilus
was a. teacher in a school, so was John; and if a
particular name was affixed to Theophilus, that same
name. was affixed by John to a lad for whom
he had taken a liking. Beyond that, he (Sir F.
. Thesiger) would prove that Mr. John . Turner was
sometimes called Theophilus in London, and that on one
occasion Mr. Fitzgerald was beard to banter him and
say, "Your name is not Jack, it's Theophilus." It
. would also be proved that there was a person named
Jones, who let lodgings in Bell-alley, Coleman-street,
and whom Mr. Turner used to visit on the most inti-
mate terms; and that on one occasion, when taking
luncheon there. Mrs. Jones was heard by;two or three
witnesses to call him by the name of " The." or
" Theo." It was deeply to be regretted, that when Mr.
Mettle had taken out letters of administration on the
part of the Crown, and taken possession of all the books
and papers. of the deceased, he had felt it to be his duty
to dispose of all those books. Those books were no
doubt-in themselves of little value, but they would have
furnished evidence of the strongest character in favour
of the plaintiffs. It would, however, be proved by Mrs.
Bower, the daughter of Mrs. de Russiere, with whom
Mr. Turner lodged for 17 years in Great Russell-sti,eet,
and also by another lady, who lodged there at the same
time, that they had seen books on Mr. Turner's fable
with the name " Theophilus Turner" written in them.
In addition to these facts, it would be shown fvhat
there was living in the Tower a Mrs.Fairweatheri the
wife of a messenger or storekeeper. She was the
daughter of William Turner, one of the sons of old
Turner, and first cousin to Theophilus; and it would
be proved that the deceased was in the habit for a great
many years of visiting her, and that he made her an
allowance for her support. Those visits would be prOvesi
by six or seven witnesses, and that Mr. Turner called
her his " Cousin Amy " or Cousin Amelia," andithat
she called him her " Cousin The," or " Cousin Theo 7
philus," or " Cousin John." It would be importaneno*
to connect Mrs. Fairweather with the Suffolk family.
Isabella, one of the sisters of Theophilus, had been mar-
ried to a person named Thomas Dersley at Ingham,
and sometimes came to town; but the deceased had
warned Mrs. Fairweather not to let any of his relations
know where he was, and threatened if she did to with-
draw her allowance; and, accordingly, it would be

rstiovtal that -'lova, givaa .4-4,1041 to live_
daughter net to etimmunieare the fuot to his irelatioua.
In i,rtier to connect the deceased with the Suf-
folk family, the Learned Counsel then proceeded to
state that there was in London one Thomas Turner
Dersley, a potboy, who afterwards went to Leicester,
where he got into the employ of two gentlemen, who
some time afterwards had two horses stolen, and sent
Dersley up to London, with a man named Pitt, in search
of them. Soon after their arrival at the White Swan,
near Smithfield, they found one horse and one thief;
whom they lodged in Giltspur-street Prison; and when
they were dining at the White Swan the deceased, Mr.
Turner, came in and inquired for a parcel, and seemed
much annoyed at its not having come. Some conversa-
tion ensued, in which Dersley said he came from near
by Bury, when the deceased, Mr. Turner, asked him if
he knew Mr. Turner, the gardener of Dr. Ord? To this
Dersley replied, " I should think I do—be was my grand-
father." Mr. Turner then inquired about his uncles and
aunts, walked about the room for some time, and then
put some questions about his missing uncle, and at last
declared himself to be the uncle of Dersley. This took
place in the presence of Pitt and Hatfield, a police,
officer, who, however, did not hear the whole conver-
sation ; but they would prove that the old gentleman
was much affected. Ile also said he would call again
_ _

on the following day, which he did, and asked for—his
nephew, and gave him three half-crowns. Mr.
Turner then took his nephew with him to the Sun Fire-
office in Craig's court, and gave him his address in
Huntley-street. The nephew called there afterwards
during Mr. Turner's absence from home, and when the
tact was mentioned to Mr. Turner he expressed no sur-

prise that his nephew should call. But shortly after-
wards it appeared that Mr. Turner's better feelings of
kindness towards his poor relative were stifled, and he
got a Mr. Wright to address a letter to his nephew, in-
forming him that he (Mr. Turner) did not want to have
anything more to do with his poor relations. It ap-
peared that Deraley told his mother that he had seen his
uncle, but he did not tell her where he was to be found,

probably thinking that if he kept the matter secret he
might get the whole of his uncle's fortune. In the year
1832 Dersley was apprehended on suspicion of horse-
stealing and lodged in St. Albans' Gaol. When there
he gave a reference to his uncle in Huntley-street, and
a police-officer was sent up to Mr. Turner to inquire
into the truth of the prisoner's statement. The police••

officer saw Mr. Turner, who, not denying his relations
ship to the prisoner, refused to interfere on his behalf,
arid added, that as he had made his bed so he might lie.
The prisoner, however, was discharged from prison by
the magistrates, as there was no evidence against him.
Mrs. Fairweather died in the year 1832, and her husband
in 1837; and Mrs. Dersley, the sister of the deceased,
who had been for years on the look-out for her lost
brother, and had often made herself ridiculous by the
manlier in which she had gone about, when she came to
London, inquiring for her brother, Mr. Turner, was
baffled in all her inquiries till the year 1841. In that
year the deceased was found to be a lunatic, and a re-
port of the proceedings on the commission published in
the Weekly Chronicle, having been shown to her, she lost
no time in coming up to London and went straight to
lluntley-street, where Mrs. Dersley and-Mr. Turner re-
cognized each other as brother and sister. Mrs. Dersley
then sent into the country for a person of the name of
Last, who had been at school with Theophilus at Mr.
Plum's; and when Last came up to London he recognized
him as his school-fellow, and as the son of the gardener
who had worked at Dr. Ord's. Upon the death of Mr.
Turner some important testamentary papers had been
found, by which legacies amounting to about 10,0001.
had been left to different persons, and those legacies had
been paid by the Crown, upon the parties entering into
bonds to restore the money it the plaintiffs should esta-
blish their claim.
On Wednesday many other witnesses were called for
the plaintiff, who stated that they had frequently seen
Mr. Turner on a visit to Mrs. Fairweather in the
Tower; they had heard her call Mr. Turner " Cousin
The.," and sometimes " Cousin John." The witnesses
also gave a description of the person of Mr. Turner.
Other witnesses said this Mr. Turner always went by
the name of John, but that in his boots was written the
name of Theophilus. Dersley was called, and bore out
the statement of the Learned Counsel as to what had
taken place between him and Turner. In cross exami-
nation, he said, after I had seen Mr. Turner I informed
my family of that fact; but I did not let them know
'what his address was, because I thought I might get
some blunt out of him some day or other, but it seems
he did not keep his word.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the jury on
behalf of the Crown. After justifying the Crown in
the conduct that had been pursued, he assured the jury
that they as yet had heard nothing of the real state of
this cause. The whole of the plaintiffs' case was based
on improbability, because he world show that, by the
testimony of the witnesses they had—heartl,the Turner
they had spoken of had acted throughout upon a false
assumption. He would most clearly prove that the
Turner to whom this large property belonged was a
totally different person to the Turner of whom the
plaintiffs' witnesses had spoken, and the real question
wus whether the plaintiff 'Turner was the Turner who
had died intestate? He would shOw that the intestate
had memorialized the Sun Fire-office, and in that me-
morial he had stated that he had been a clerk in that
establishment for more than 40 years, and was then 70
years of age, and he had asked, on that account, that he
might be permitted to retire upon a pension. Upon this
memorial the directors had adjudged that the party
should have a pension of 2001. a year. It was therefore
impossible that the intestate could have been the same
person as the one of whom the plaintiffs' witnesses had
spoken. The Crown had only one object, and that was
to see that persons who were really not entitled should
not take this large property ; as the law officer of the
Crown he felt bound to institute the strictest inquiry.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiffs, he contended,
was contradictory, but he should be enabled to place be-
fore them a straightforward case, and he would call be-
fore them witnesses who had known the intestate for a
considerable time and had heard him give an account of
his own history ; he had always told them how much he
regretted that he had no relations to whom he could
leave that which he possessed. The statements were in-
consistent and improbable ; they were against the inte-
rest of the party, and they would go to show that throug-
out he had,been acting upon a false basis.
The case was proceeded with on Thursday, and con-
cluded.
Henry T. Raven produced the copy of the register of
the baptism of John Turner, gas son of James-and
Elizabeth -Turner, from the parish of St. James, West-
minster, dated the 14th of September, 1755, which
stated that John Turner was born on the 23d of August,
1755. This witness also produced a piece of paper in
the intestate's handwriting, stating that his name was
" John Turner," and that he was born on the 23d of
August, 1755. .
Mr. George Delmar was then called. He stated that
he was a solicitor in Lincoln's Inn-fields. Knew the
intestate, John Turner, well. First knew him in the
latter- end of the year 1812, and was his soli-
citor and confidential advise'h up to the time of his
death. He believed the copy of certain letters in
a book produced were in the intestate's handwriting.
(A book was here shown to the witness.) He be-
lieved also the copies of the two memorials presented
to the Sun Fire-office to be in Mr. John Turner's
handwriting. Also believed the entry of the memoranda
which were in the book to be in the handwriting of the
intestate. He believed the entries of accounts and re-
ceipts to be in the handwriting of Mr. John Turner
(another book was here shown to witness). After Mr.
John Turner became a lunatic, witness made a most
minute search through the intestate's papers. He found
various names in several books, but did not find the
name of Theophilus in any of them. The documents
produced by Mr. Raven were handed by witness to that
gentleman. Mr. John Turner passed a good deal' of
time with witness, and often dined with him. He
appeared to have received a good education. He read
peculiarly well, and was in the habit of reading aloud.
He never heard him pronounce any word with a provin-
cial accent; he never used low or obscene observations
in conversation, and was a person of strict veracity. Never
heard him during his mental life speak of, his relations.
He never carried a stick with a gold knob, but generally
an umbrella, and wore pantaloons with gaiters and
shoes. Never saw him wear Hessian boots, or boots of
any kind.- -In 1838 the • intestate sent for witness about
the disposition of his property, and showed him a letter
which he had received. When witness had read it, he
said, " I don't wish the Queen to have any of my pro-
perti." The writer of the letter advised the intestate to
make his will so as to give time for some money affairs
to be settled between them by instalments. Witness
then said if the intestate did not make a will his pro-
perty would go to the Crown; upon which he replied
that he did not wish his property to go to the Crown,
but was not then prepared to make a will, as he had not
made up his mind on the subject. On one occasion the
intestate said he wished he had married, that
he might have had an heir to leave his pro-
perty to. He often expresied a' wish that he had
married. He was a person of pallid complexion—cer-
tainly not swarthy. His eyebrows were thin, not
bushy. He wore powder all his life, and was of a most
amiable temper, but not free with his money. Witness
had received a legacy of 200/, part of 4001. from the
Crown, being a portion of the intestate's property, and
had given a bond to restore it in case the claimants
. were successful.
Cross-examinedn—erWaittnMes,rss.4vle)de
in thes am e house bywi
th Sir F.
Mr.TrotfilGrkTEußr.
h
Russiere's, in Great Russell-street, in 1812. Had never
the intestate say that he had been a teacher in a
school. Mr. John Turner was rather a corpulent man,
and had a twitch in one of his shoulders. He was
marked with the small-pox. The " mental life" of the
intestate closed in 1839, but his memory had begun to
fail before that time. The first time the intestate spoke
of his relations was not until the latter end of the year
1839. The intestate spoke of his father, but witness
treated it as a delusion. He said the house in Huntley-
Street was his father's, and the pictures there belonged to
his father. The intestate also said he had a half-sister,
but he did not recollect her maiden name. He also said
that his' half-sister was a teacher in a school; that she
had a son who was a clever boy, and had been educated
in Westminster School. He also said his sister, was a
teacher in a school in one of the streets at Westminster,
which was kept by a person of the name of Toogood,
and that had she been alive at the time she would have
been 80 years of age. This was in the year 1840. Had
heard the intestate often utter the word " Sally," he
called his servant Sally, although her proper name was
Lucy. Witness refused to communicate with the soli-
citor of the claimants, and stated the reason in a letter.
lie had made inquiries as to whether the intestate had
any relations.
Re-examined by Mr. HILL—None of the papers of
the intestate threw any light upon whether he had any
relations.
The resolution of a meeting of the committee of the
Sun Fire-office was then read, which stated that the
general rule of the company that no person could enter
their service above 30 years of age should, iu the 0469