The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-28 00:00:00

Tag S 015- - LoNTra: FEIbAY -E
VESTING,' „ausr: 28,- 18'69.

THE CASE :OF AN ALLEGED FORGED
, TmL.

The cause of "Dickenson v. Dickenson," in which the
son sought to rovoke probate granted to his mother on the
ground that the signatures alleged to be those of his
father and two witnesses were forgeries, was again before
Lord Per z Ince in the Probate Court oil Wednesday.
John Dickenson, brother of the deceased (who was over
50 years of age when he died), first saw the will after
Charles Inane said he had found it. Witness was
appointed executor, and the personal property was under
£4,000. There was also a copyhold field. Knew Grigg
and Wilmot, He knew his brother's signature, and
believed the signature to the will was his brother's. Knew
that Griggs(on e of the witnesses to the will)was intimate with
his brother. Witness could not swear to Wilmot's—the
other attesting witness—signature.

Susannah Dickenson, the defendant in the cause, said
at the time of her husband's death four daughters were at
home. Her nephew found the will amongst some papers
in a secret drawer. She was present when the will was
found in the secret drawer. In answer to the judge, the
witness said that the drawer in question was used by ber
husband for his papers. She bad never said anything to
Blane as to searching the drawers for the will. Had not
found any of her husband's writing, nor had she asked for
or endeavoured to get any.
Charles Dickenson, brother of the deceased, believed
that the signature to the will was that of his brother.
Emma Peace, daughter of the deceased, remembered
the will being found, ar d believed the signature to it was
her father's handwriting. Her mother might have bee g
to the drawer in which the will was found.

This was the case for the plaintiff, and Dr. Spinks con-
tended that the other side had not either proved that the
attesting witnesses were dead or produced them. He could
prove that the handwriting in the will was not that of Mr.
Griggs, as alleged. That person was a medical man, and
yet there were many mistakes in the spelling which a 2
educated man would not make.

Mr. Richard Dickenson, the plaintiff, said that the sig-
nature to the will was not in his father's handwriting.
Before going to Australia witness had a conversation With
his father, and the latter said that he (witness) was to
have the farm, but that no will had been made.
Mrs. Griggs said her husband died in IE6O. The signa-
ture to the will was not that of her husband. He generally
signed his name " William Allsop Grigg," and not " Wm.
Griggs." He never would have spelt Hertfordshire,
" Harfordshire." He was a well-educated man.

Mrs. Emma Wilmot did not believe that the signature
to the will was that of her husband.

His Lordship here intimated that there was good evi-
dence that the signatures were not good ones, and afterthis
expression of opinion, Dr. Deane said it would be useless
to go on further with the case.

Baron Penzance said nobody could doubt that the sig-
natures of Wilmot and Grigg were forgeries. The court,
therefore, pronounced against the will, with costs, and the
nrobate would be revoked.

THE LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER,
RAILWAY.

Vice-Chancellor Stuart gave judgment yesterday on the
motion which was made a few days ago on behalf of a
large portion of the shareholders of the London, Chat-
ham, and Dover Railway Company, for an injunction to
restrain the directors from further promoting the arbi-
tration bill now before Parliament relating to the
affairs of the company. His Honour, it may be
remembered, on the occasion of a previous motion, a
few weeks ago, to compel the directors to bring
into court the revenue of the company, described
the unsatisfactory position of the directors. After again
referring to their position on the present occasion, he pro-
ceeded to remark that some time ago Messrs. Freshfield,
solicitors of the very highest character, were the solicitors
of the company. Suddenly they disappeared, and Messrs.
Baxter, Rose, and Norton, very eminent, became soli-
citors of the company, and prosecuted an appeal
against an order of this court with reference to
the appointment of a receiver. The results
of that appeal were disastrous to the honest share-
holders and the honest creditors of the company. Sub-
sequent proceedings in this court had in a great degree
redressed that misfortune, and if the proceedings of this
court had not been interrupted, by this time a large sum
would have been forthcoming and have been paid to the
creditors. What bad prevented that ? It had
been prevented by the Arrangements Act of 1867, in the
obtaining of which Act Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton
were the solicitors and promoters. These same solicitors
now appeared before Parliament, not as solicitors for the
company nominally opposing, but in fact pro-
moting, a bill which sought to set aside decrees which
had been made by this court, and which in the opinion
of a committee of investigation appointed by share-
holders, until means coidd be devised to meet the
obligations to creditors, afforded the Lest protection to
the various classes of creditors, especially the ddidiiture-
holders, and a guarantee against any further improper
dealing with the assets of the company. Moreover,
these same solicitors, while acting for the company and
promoting the Act of 1867, filed a bill against the com-
pany on the 27th of March 1867, as, solicitors for the
General Credit Company. On the present occasion
it seemed unnecessary to state any further facts
as to the unsatisfactory position of these solicitors and
the directors with reference to the affairs of this company.
lie bad thought it proper to state so much, as it was a
natter which ought not to be withheld when Parlia-
ment in its judicial character was dealing with the
affairs ofthis company, and was asked to stop the course
of justice in this court. As far as lie knew there was
no case in which, pending proceedings in this court,
Parliament had interfered with the course of justice in the
proper tribunal, and if such a precedent were established,
it did not require much sagacity to say that disastrous
results would ensue ; nor did he understand that
the bill in this case would have proceeded so
far if the committee of the House of Commons had
not been induced by a misrepresentation to believe that
this court could not give adequate relief. His Honour
then made am order to restrain the persons mentioned in
the present application from further promoting the bill
before Parliament, and from using the seal of the com-
pany for any such or the like purpose. Mr. Dickinson
and Mr. T. A. Roberts were counsel for the applicants,
and Sir R. Palmer and Mr. Kekewich for the directors.
The hearing of another application to Vice-Chancellor
Stuart, which has extended over portions of several days,
made by Mr. Dickinson, Q.C., on behalf of the debenture-
holders, for an order directing the sum of £150,000 in the
hands of the directors of the London, Chatham. and Dover
Railway Company, to be paid into court to be invested,
was concluded yesterday. The application had been
resisted by Sir Roundell Palmer and Mr. Kekewich for
the directors on several grounds, one of which wad
that the court was prevented from making the
required order by the Act of Parliament obtained
by the company for the purpose of " raising a
sum of money for the satisfaction of certain claims and for
other purposes." His Honour remarked that the Act had
failed in its main purpose, and further, it did. not of course
interfere with the inherent power of the court to deal with
such cases as the present. It was natural that persons having
an interest in a trust should desire that the money should
be transferred to the company, ;f thereby they would
obtain a higher rate of interest than if the money remained
with the trustees ; and a trustee, it might be supposed,
would be the very person to desire that such a transfer
should be made. His opinion was that this application
ought to have been made by the directors themselves, and
he wished it had been, more particularly because it had
recently been his painful duty to express his opinion
of the very unadvised and improper way in
which they were conducting the affairs of the company.
It was admitted by the directors that in December last
there was a clear sum of £150,000 odd in their hands.
There was no evidence to .chew that that sum was
diminished, but, on the contrary, the presumption was
that the balance was by this time much increased.
For the affairs of the company were only bad
because of the expenses of litigation, and of
extraordinary claims which bad been made upon the com-
pany. It was, in fact, a great and flourishing concern, and
the income might to be ample, and indeed it would have
afforded a considerable sum, `which ought to be
in the hands of the debenture-holders and shareholders,
but of the intervention of this Act, which had been passed
on the faith that money would be raised.—His Honour
accordingly made al, order for the payment of the sum
into court, in order that it might be invested.

THE SHOCKING WIFE MURDER AT HASTINGS.
Arr. Sheppard. the district coroner, has concluded the in•
rue.st opened upon the body of Mrs. Matilda Stubberfield,
aged 11, who was alleged to have been murdered by her
husband, Mr. Jeremiah Stubberfield, a fax:mer, living at
Gardene`'s Farm, Asburnham, Hastings. The facts, as
reported, having bon depoied to by several witnesses, tl:e
:ury retnrrsed a vercPot of " Wilful Murder," against
Jeremiah Stubberfield, Nrlio has been brought before th•
bench of magistrates, and committed for trial.

A VICTIM OF THE DERBY.—Early on Thurs-
day roiorning a young man. named Daniel Andrews, who
acted ill the capacity of a coachman to Mr. J. Trimmen,
of Twicltrnham, was found dead in a stable belonging to
his employer, withhis throat cut from ear to ear. A razor,
besmeared with blood, was found lying by his side. The
body of the deceased was conveyed to the Buck Inn,
where it awaits an inqu,Vt! It is stated that the cause of
the fatal deed vas the fa. It that the deceased had betted
rather heavily, and lost on'certain horses that ran in the
Derby race on the previous day, and his consciousness
thg ji_q_w_4!_unable to meet tt.ellgageMellt?,

111.1SCELL,liVEOUS ARMS.

traitor, and a dunce, he was in ravour limn Lie
Castle. (llere two chaplains to-the Lord Lieutenant
were named). - There was one more link to the
-chain—the Right Hon: Benjamin Disraeli." Here
the gas suddenly went out, and for some
time there was a fierce conflict between
light and darkness, during the intervals of which
Dr. Gregg delivered his opinion of the ex-Premier.
The doctor then descended to lower game, Richard
Weaver, the converted collier, whom he considered
almost as bad as Gladstone, and a good deal worse
than Disraeli. Mr. Spurgeon was the next victim,
but was let off pretty easily, the severest punishment
inflicted on him being that he was called "Sturgeon."
Dr. Gregg then became excessively wild. He talked
about opening a banking account with the Lord
Jesus Chriet, and concluded by telling " Glodstone"
that they (Dr. Gregg and his friends) "would
shake England and America ; but G ladstone
would not dare to be guilty of the
high crime. He (Dr. Gregg) had fought
the battle of the English Church ; he had
fought the battle of the English State, he had
grown grey in the service. Ilis reward was disqua-
lification and exclusion, while he saw the heretic and
the 'dunce in favour." The lecturer, after nearly 160
minutes of railing accusation, began to remember
the object for which he had called the meeting, and
appealed for money. This does not seem to have
been forthcoming, but, of course, the proceedings
ended with "the singing of the Doxology."