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

EVENING, JULY 10, 1848.

though, however, such was the result of past experience I
he (Lord J. Russell) still thought the object of the mea-
sures of 1846 had been introduced to combine the two ;
objects. He found that Irish Members' spoke of the
works which had been undertaken as if the primary ob-
ject of those measures had not been to feed 3,000,000 of
people who otherwise would have been entirely without
the means of sustentation.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) stated that
the works undertaken had all been selected by the offi-
cers of the Government, but that assertion had been com-
pletely answered by the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Londonderry (Sir R. Ferguson), who had declared they
had been selected from the various barony presentments
made by the country gentlemen themselves to the Board
of Trade, and thence to the Treasury. Therefore, if the
works were valueless and unproductive, the country
gentlemen acquainted with the localities, and not either
the Board of Works or the Government, were to blame
for the selection of those which had been undertaken.
—(Hear, hear.) But the works having been under-
taken for the purpose of feeding the population, great
inconvenience must have resulted from a sudden ter-
mination of labour on the works which had not been
completed, and the question now was whether, having
obtained some portion of the moneys before advanced,
it was not advisable that the Government should be em-
powered to re-issue part of that so repaid, in order to
the completion of the works. It was obvious that many
of the roads might be completed so as to be of some
public utility. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goul-
burn) argued that it would have been much better to
have Called for the repayment of all the advances, and
then, in a Committee of Supply, to have proposed the
grant of a separate sum for public works in Ireland. He
(Lord J. Russell) could agree with the Right Hon.
Gentleman if there had been such a repayment of the
advances as would have justified that course, but he was
afraid the repayments had not been such as the Right
Honourable Gentleman seemed to suppose. While
in some districts a repayment rate of ls. or ls. 6d. in
the pound could be obtained, in others it was almost
impossible, under present circumstances, to obtain
repayment at all, and therefore it was proposed by
this Bill that a certain discretion should be left with
the Government, and that where some small advances
had been repaid, a portion of these repayments might
be re-issued; and in other cases, where the state of the
country required it, a further postponement of the re-
payment of former advances should be granted. As to
the question whether or not there ought to be an in-
quiry into the operation of the poor-law in Ireland, this
was not the time to discuss such a proposition. It was
rather too much to say that they should pass a law one
session and seek to inquire into its operation in the next,
before the parties charged with its execution had had
time to carry it into lull effect.--(Hear, hear.) From
some parts of Ireland he had heard that there was
scarcely enough raised from the rates to keep the people
alive, while in other districts ho received satisfactory ac-
counts that the poor-law worked beneficially. The time
might come when it would be well to look into its work-
ing; and then, to any amendment which might be sug-
gested, the Government would be ready to consider it,
with a view to making the existing law more perfect and
beneficial.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SA DLIER said that, under all the circumstances
which surrounded the question, he felt bound to give
this Bill his support. At the same time he must remind
the Noble Lord that the local authorities in Ireland had
been left no discretion in the selection of the public
works which had been undertaken under the first Act
which had been passed on this subject. If the expendi-
ture on many of those works was returned to the House,
he thought it would be found that much had gone in
cigars and soda water for the officers sent to curry the
Act into operatioN, rather than to the population for
whose benefit the law was intended. No good would be
done until the area of taxation was reduced for poor-
law purposes. It was monstrous that in Ireland there
should only be 130 unions, while in England there were
upwards of 600. Ho felt satisfied that stoner or later
the areas of the Irish unions must be diminished.
_ _

Mr. R. M. FOX decried tho works which had already,
been carried on by the Government in Ireland, and con-
tended that more discretion in their selection ought to be
left i❑ the hands of the local authorities.

Mr. P. SCROPE contended, that without looking to
France for an example, Ireland had herself proved that
no Government could beneficially undertake to feed and
employ the population of any country. The works un•
dertaken in 1846 had been wholly unproductive, and ho
was firmly convinced that with no result the expenditure
of public money bad not only been useless, but profli-
gate. He maintained that all advances made should be
absolutely repayable, and from the repayment there
ought to be no escape. If this principle was followed he
would undertake to say that in the whole western dis-
trict of Ireland, including Mayo and the barony of Erris,
instead of 'the lands remaining waste, they would be
made by their owners productive, and able to maintain
the population resident upon them.
Mr. P. S. BUTLER thought the proposition now
made by the Government neither unreasonable nor re-
prehensible—it was demanded by the urgency of the
case. The present time required the Legislature to deal
with facts and not with theories, and therefore, regard-
ing the present measure as one of practical utility, he
should give it his most cordial support.
Mr. GOULI3URN, in the absenCe of Mr. Stafford,
was understood to withdraw the amendment, and the
Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday next.

F,XTRAORDTNARY CASE.

The billowing is a succinct account of the recent trial
in the Court of Queen's Bench (Tuner and o:,hers V.
Manlc), 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
estate 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 01 January, 1763, at Badwell
Ash,•Suffolk ?

Sir F. Tetesscen 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 60,000/. Prior to his death a commission of
lunacy 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. Maule 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 Livermere, in Suffolk,
one John Turner, a gardener, who in that year made
his will, and left a legacy to John Turner, and IN.
to the clergyman of Livermore for his son Theophilus;
and in case Theophilus should be dead, or should never
return home to Livermore, 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 llilder 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 Bad well Ash, about three miles off, and there, in the
year 1763, Theophilus was born, whom he (Sir F. Thesi-
Neer) 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
horn, who was baptised on the 26th of December, 1764.
The family then removed to Fornham St. Martin, where
another son, George Milder 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
home in Suffolk there was reason to believe that he dropped
the extraordinary name of Theophilus, 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 2001. a year. While in the Sun Fire-office Mr. Turner
obtained a share of a prize in a lottery, and this was the
foundation of his fortune, which subsequently amounted
to 60,400/. 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-
ance 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.
Slr. Fitzgerald was also in the habit of sending up game
for Mr. Turner, of the Sun Fire-office, who used 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 he (Sir F. Thesiger) undertook to
prove that John Turner, who died in January, 1842, was
Theophilus Turner, the son of the gardener of Dr. Ord.
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 that he was
son of a gardener, and one would prove that he had said
that his father was the gardener of Dr. Ord. Mr.
Turner had been a schoolfellow at Bury with the Rev.
Mr. White, vicar of Allhallows, Barking. If Mr.
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, ho 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 that,,
was
sometimes called Theophilus in London, and that on one
occasion Mr. Fitzgerald was heard to banter him and
say, " Your name is not Jack, 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 OR 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.
Maule 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-street,
and also by another lady, who lodged there at the same
time, that they had seen books on Mr. Turner's table
with the name " Theophilus Turner" written in them.
In addition to these facts, it would be shown that
there was living in the Tower a Mrs. Fairweather, 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 visiSs would be proved
by six or seven witnesses, and that Mr. Turner called
her his " Cousin Amy " or Cousin Amelia," and that
she called him her " Cousin The," or " Cousin Theo-
philus," or " Cousin John." It would be important now
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

proved that Mrs. Fairweather had given orders to her
daughter not to eo.nniunicate the fact to his relations.
In order 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, 64. I should think I do—he 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 co 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. lie 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 (MreTurner) did not want to have
anything more to do with his poor relations. It ap-
peared that Dersley 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
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 relation-
ship to the prisoner, refused to interfere on his behalf,
and 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
manner 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
Huntley 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 sea). Ur. Turner I informed
my family of that fact; but I did not let thorn 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 would show that, by the
testimony of the witnesses they had heard, 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
was 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 ho 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 ; ho had always told them how much he
regretted that he had no relation- 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 throng-
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, the 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 adviser up to the time of his
death. He believed the copy of certain letters in
a book produced were iu 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 beard 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.
Ile 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 bad read it, he
said, " I don't wish the Queen to have any of my pro-
perty." 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 expressed a wish that he had
married. He was a person of pallid complexion—cer-
tainly not swarthy. His eyebrows wero 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 400 L 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.
i n t hes ttm e h Cross-examinedouse bwyitShir3rFi.r.Tjagsitf.uTEunr.n—erWaittnmesrss. Dolived
Russiire's, in Great Russell-sereeb a a 1812. Had never
heard the intestate say that he bad 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 Salty, although her proper name was
Lucy. Witness refused to communicate with the soli-
citor of the claimants, and stated the reason in a letter.
He 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, in the case

of Mr. John Turner, be dispensed with. The witness
also read a resolution of a meeting of the committee of
the Sun Fire-office, dated 20th July, 1825. The resolu-
tion decided that the memorial of Mr. John Turner,
praying to be allowed to retire, should lie on the table.
The witness next read a resolution, dated January 5,
1826, in answer to a second memorial presented by the
intestate, praying that he might be allowed to retire on
a pension, as he was incapable, through his advanced
age, of discharging the duties of his office.
Mr. E. Farrer—Was a surgeon residing in Guild-
ford• street, Russell-square. Knew the intestate, and was
his medical man. Began to attend him from 1838 until
the time .of his death. Latterly he attended him daily.
First knew the intestate in 1837 through a Mn'. Watts, a
friend of Mr. Turner's. Had been present on occasions
with Mrs. Watts, when witness had said to the intestato
that he had better make his will, or his property would
go to the Crown. Mr. Turner was in the habit of say.
ing, that although he had no relations he would take care
that the Qteen did not have his property. He said his
age was about eighty. Was present at an interview be-
tween Mrs. L Dersley and Mr. Turner. Witness re-
membered Mrs. Dersley coming into the room, accom-
panied by two younger females, and saying, " Ahl that
is my dear brother John; I should know him anywhere."
The intestate then rose, and shook hands with Mrs.
Dersley. Ono of the.young women asked him if he
knew Mrs. Dersley, and he said, " No, no;" but he was
glad to see her, and talked of his father, which he was
always doing. At this time the intestate was a lunatic.
The name of " Theophilus" was not mentioned. Mrs.
Parsley did not resemble the intestate. Witness was
present at the interview between the intestate and Last.
Last looked at him, and said " That is John Turner."
Last asked him if he remembered Dr. Ord, to which he
replied, " No, no,". his usual manner of answering all
questions after he became a lunatic. '
Cross-examined by Sir F. THESIGEn—Was in the
habit of " plying" the old gentleman to make his will
from 1839. There was not the least resemblance be-
tween Thomas Turner Dersley and the intestate.
Mr. Frederick Prescott proved that he had heard the
deceased state that he had no relations. Had received
a donation of 800/. from the Crown, and given a bond to
restore it in case of the plaintiffs succeeding.
Mr. John Fitzgerald examined by Mr. HILL—Had
received 500/. of the testator's property, and had given a
bond for 1,0001. His children had received 50/.
and he had
_become surety to the Crown for the repay-
ment of the same, if the plaintiffs should recover. He,
knew the intestate intimately ; he was in the habit, from
1794, of being acquainted most intimately with his
uncle, Mr. Fitzgerald,. who died in 1818. He bad
walked with the late Mr. Turner by the Tabernacle, in•
Tottenham-court-road, and the intestate said, " If you
want to know my age, that stone will show you," and he
afterwards said " The date of the building being erected
was the year in which I was born." In the year 1835,
Mr. Turner said he was a fine old boy for eighty. In
1802 witness became .the possessor of Bretfield-house,.
in Suffolk, and Mr. Turner came down in October, 1802,;
and he then said he had never been in the county of
Suffolk before. He never was called Theophilus or said •
that was his name. He was a thorough " Cockney " in)
his habit'.

Cross-examined by Sir F. THESIGER—Mr. Turner'
had lent him 7,0001., which he owed him at the time of!
his death ; but he always :paid the interest. The prin-
cipal was now paid. .
Mr. E. T. Watts gave nearly similar testimony. He
had received altogether from the Crown 1,1001. out of
the intestate's property, and had given a bond to return
it if the claimants should be successful.
Lucy Clapperton examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE' •
RAL—She stated that she had lived 17 or 18 years with
the late Mr. Turner. She was five years with him be-
fore she became housekeeper. He told her that he went
to school at Chelsea, and that he was as a parlour
boarder. She had often asked Mr. Turner whether he
had any relations, and be said he had none living. Be-
fore he became a lunatic her master told her that he had
a half-si6ter, of whom he was very fond, but that she
was dead, and had been a teacher in a school. Mr.
Turner told her that he caught the small-pox when at
school at Chelsea. The intestate called her Sally,
because he was fond of that name. He said
he wished to settle his affairs, and leave his
property to certain charities and among his
friends. When Mrs. Dersley saw Mr. Turner he had
quite lost his recollection, and said his father was living•
He never lost that impression. He said ho was born
about the s ear in which Whitefield's Tabernacle was
built. He said he was baptised in St. James's Church,
Piccadilly, and that he should some day get the certifi-
cate of his baptism, by paying 2s. 6d. for it. Mr.
Turner never had a cane with a gold knob, but always
carried a cotton umbrella.

Cross-examined by Sir F. THEstoEn--Witness had
received 1501. from the Crown, but had given no bond to
return it. She and her husband had set up in the busi
ness of a baker. Mr. Turner told her that his eyebrows
were burnt off with gunpowder when he was a boy at
school.

Charles Hodgkinson produced the rate-books of the
parish of St. Giles's, from 1759 to 1772, by which it ap;
peared that a" James Turner, of Great Russell-street,
was rated at 1/. 5s

This concluded the case on the part of the Crown.
Sir F. TIIESIGER, as evidence in reply, called a witness
of the name of Allsop, who put in a copy of the bar ,
tismal register of Mary, the daughter of Keen Fitz-
gerald. The register was dated, " Parish of St. James,
Westminster, June, 1755."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to this ;as 14
being relevant to the matter at issue.
Mr. Justice ERLE inquired what motive the Learned
Counsel had for producing this evidence ?
Sir F. THESIGER said that the late Mr. Turner was $
great friend of Mr. Fitzgerald's, who had married Mary,
the daughter of Mr. Keen Fitz4erald ; and that it was
possible he might have gone to see the registry of the
parish of St. James, Westminster, for some purpose of .
Mr. Fitzgerald's, and there having discovered the name
of a John Turner as being born in 1775, had adopted it
as his own register. He should also put in the certifi-
cate of the burial of a John Turner, who was buried in
1756, and described in the certificate as a child. There •
fore it was possible that the John Turner set up by the
Crown bad died the same year in which he was born.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his Learned Friend
was mistaken upon that point, as the John Turner
whose burial certificate he had was the son of a Henrf
Turner, whereas the John Turner whom he said was
the intestate, was the son of a James and Elizabeth
Turner.

Mr. Raven was then recalled to prove this fact, and he,
stated that he had searched the register of the parish o 1
St. James, Westminster, and found that a John Turner,
child, was buried in 1755; he was, however, the son of 0,-
Henry Turner, but witness had not the copy he made of
the certificate.
The copy of the certificate in question was then sent
for, and two burial certificates were subsequently pro'
duced in court, by which it appeared that two children of
the name of John Turner were buried in 1735, in the
parish of St. James's, Westminster, the father of one
of whom was a person named Henry Turner.
Sir F. THESIGER then replied upon the whole case in
a most powerful and argumentative speech, which lasted
upwards of three hours.
Mr. Justice ERLE asked the jury, first, whether
John Turner, to whom the defendant had administered,
was the son of John and Elizabeth Turner who resided
in Suffolk ? and, secondly, whether John Turner was the '
person baptised under the name of Theophilus Turner,
at Badwell Ash, in Suffolk, in Jan. 14, 1763?
The jury immediately returned a verdict for tile
plaintiffs.

TRAINING INSTITUTIONS FOR NURSES.--ThUTSCIN
a meeting was held at the Hanover-square. Rooms for the
purpose of forming a society for the training and ill'
structing nurses in the performance of their duties. The
chair was taken at one o'clock by his Royal Highness
the Duke of Cambridge, who was supported by the Earls
Nelson and Harrowby, the Bishops of London, Norwich,
Salisbury, and Manchester; the Rev. Dr. Wordsworth,
Dr. Todd, &c. The meeting, in the course of the pro-
ceedings; was addressed by all the gentlemen above'
mentioned, who advocated in the best manner the cause
of those who were to be benefited by the training of the
nurses, and combated the notion that by forming
class of female assistants and visitants of the sick chef
were borrowing from the Church of Rome something
that would tend to injure the Church of England. The
ladies who should go forth to assist the poor were prac-
tising virtues enjoined in the Holy Scriptures, and there
was no doubt of their zealous co-operation. The seeietf, .
was as yet in its infancy, but there could be no doubt 01
the increase of its powers when the objects for which it
was formed were explained to the public. A number of '
resolutions concurring in the views taken by the speakers
were then carried by acclamation. A vote of thanks
was then passed for the Chairman, who acknowledged
the compliment, and about three o'clock the meeting ws.
dissolved.

On the Bth inst., at West-grange, Edinburgh, the lady of
David Carnegie, Esq., of a son.
On the 9th inst., at Marlborough-hill, St. John's-woods
the wife of John C. F. S. Day, Esq., of a son.
On the 12th inst., the wife of C. Ring, Esq., of Doctor?'
commons and Mitcham. of a daughter.
On the 13th inst., the lady pi A. Robinson, Esq., barrister'
at-law, of a son.
On the 11th inst., at the Oakery-cottage, Beckenham, the
wife of J. J. Talman, Esq., of a son.

D.
On the 13th inst., at St.MA
PaußllE's, Knightsbridge, the Wl'
t. W. F. Thursby, rector of Abington, near Northamptl'
o Elizabeth Sophia, only daughter of the late Thomas Beck'
with, Esq.
On the 13th inst., at Crawford, R. F. Mountain, Escl''
youngest son of Dr. Mountain, to Mary Anne Jesuit 5'
youngest daughter of J. F. Burnett, Esq., of May-place, Sell'
On the 13th inst., at Lewisham, Kent, N. B. Englehes":
Esq., jun., of Doctors's commons, to Caroline, third daughte'
of the late Rev. W. Marsh, Chaplain of Morden College'
Blackheath.

On the 13th inst., at St. James's, Westminster, Mr.
Graffty, of Warwick-street, to Elizabeth Stevens, 1011.11'
daughter of the late Mr. J. Madge, of Plymouth.

DIED.

On the 11th inst., at Sutto7ilouse, near Hounslow, hi°
Peto, Esq., aged 77.
On the 12th inst., at Notting-hill, Mrs. Aldridge, aged B4'
On the 12th inst., at Hackney, Middlesex, Elizabeth Anne'
widow of R. H. Wilkins, Esq.
On the 12th inst., at Bedford-place, Russell-square, If'
Ryde, Esq., aged 71.
Or the 12th inst., at Warnhatn•court, near Horsham. r.
srS•
Fuller, Esq., of Upper Tooting, late of the firm of gee
Child and Co., aged 92.
On the 12th inst., at Hermes-hill, Pentonville,
Smith, aged 65.
On the 12th inst., Mr. G. Wright, of Stockwell—crescent'
Clapham road, aged 37.
On the 13th inst., Mr. W. Edwards, of Basinghall—street'

- at
London : Printed and Published by MURDO
2,:.
YOUNGII.2t
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, 141°•.; gt
Strand, in the Precinct f the Savoy, in the MOW
Middlesex, Saturday, July 15, 1848.