The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

SIR MOSES MONTEFIOBE V. BROWNE.

The further hearing of this important appeal was ap-
pointed• to be heard this morning, at half-past 10 o'clock.
The Attorney-General (Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C.) was
heard in reply for the appellants.
At the conclusion of the arguments the Lord Chan-
cellor reserved judgment,

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
(,Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
THE EUROPEAN AND AUSTRALIAN STEAM PACKET COM
PANT V. THE ROYAL MAIL STEAM COMPANY.
Hi, Honour gave judgment this morning in this case,
which was an injunction to restrain the defendants from
sending the ship Tasmanian to sea, or otherwise em-
ploying her in their own service, and from selling or
transferring her except under the direction rf this Court.
The plaintiffs were established at Glasgow in Sep-
tember, 1856, as a limited company under the Joint-
Stock - Companies' Act, 1856. Shortly after their
establishment they adopted a contract with the
Government for the Australian mail service, and,
in order to carry it out, arrangements were
made for providing additional steamships, one
of which, the Tasmanian, was contracted to be built for
them in Glasgow. In July, 1857, negotiations were set
on foot for an cnalgamation between the plaintiffs and
the defendants, the Royal Mail Steampacket Company,
a company incorporated by Royal charter in September,
1839. It was ascertained that the proposed amal,ama-
tion could not be effected without an act of Parlia-
ment, and it was determined that application should be
made to Parliament for an act authorising the amalga-
mation of the two companies. An agreement, dated the
19th of September, 1857, was entered into between the
two companies in anticipation of the projected amal-
gamation, by which it was agreed that the defendants
should undertake the fulfilment of the contracts
between the plaintiffs and Government for the con.
♦eyance of the Indian and Australian mails ; that the
vessels required for this service should be furnished by
the plaintiffs to the extent of their existing stock of
vessels, which should continue to be used so far as re-
quired in performing the service between Suez, Austra-
lia, and India; that the defendants were to provide all
nessary stores for the ships and receive all moneys pay-
able for freight or passengers in connection with the ser-
vice, for which purpose they were to receive from the
plaintiffs an order upon Government for payment
of all moneys becoming due for services, and that
in the event of the application to Parliament fail-
ing the arrangement was to continue in force
for nine months after such failure. In Decem-
ber, 1857, the defendants, who had incurred con-
siderable losses in respect of the agreement ce
September, 1857, applied to the plaintiffs f J 1 some secu-
rity fcr the amount anticipated to become due from them.
The plaintiffs consented to give the defendants a security
in the nature of a mortgage upon the Tasmanian, which
agreement was carried out by a Scotch instrument called
an "assignation," dated the 24th of December, 1857,
and by an agreement of the same date. This agreement
contained a power of sale in certain events, with a con-
dition that, in the event of their claims being satisfied
before a sale, the defendants should convey the steamer
to the plaintiffs. A resolution was passed by the
shareholders of the Royal Mail Company against the pro-
posed amalgamation, and the bill then pending before
Parliament was consequently abandoned. The affairs
of the plaintiffs having become embarrassed, it was re-
solved, on the 21 of June last, that their affairs should
be voluntarily wound up. Their existing contracts with
the Government were subsequently cancelled, and the
mandate authorising the defendants to receive the quer
terly contract money was withdrawn by the plaintiffs.
The defendants had taken possession of the Tasmanian,
and brought her from the Clyde to Southampton, where
she had been registered in their name as owners. It we-.
proposed by the defendants to send her to Australia in
the course of this month, in restraint of which proceed-
ing the plaintiffs had filed their bill, and now moved fa.
an injunction.

His Honour having, at soma length, commented on
the authorities bearing on the point, said the motion
must be refused, with costs.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir C. Creswell, Judge Ordinary.)

00011BIES AND HATNES V. COOMBES.-CURIOUS CASE.
This wal a cause for proving the validity of a will.
Mr. Day appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Norman
for the defendant.

Mr. Day, in opening the case, said the declaration
alleged that George Caines Coornhes, on the 11th of
January, 1854, made a will, to which the defendant
pleaded it was not executed according to the provisions
of the act. The testator was a cheesemonger, carrying
on business in Cow Cross-street, Snithfil 1, and was
married to the first-nims.l plaintiff in 1836. The second-
named plaintiff 7Vas the deceased's nephew, and resided
with him for upwards of 12 years previous to his death.
The defendant, John Langhorn Conning, is a farmer,
residing in Dorsetshire. The testator was a man of
singulariy close and peautiaus habits, and observed con-
fidential relations only with his nephew, his wife being
wholly unacquainted with his pecuniary afftirs ; he was
in the habit of speculating, and at his death was seicel
of a tolerable estate. About four years since the tee.
tater inquired of the plaintiff, Haynes, if he had seen a
paper (his will) lying about, and he said no, on which
the testator said, "Then I suppose I must write out
another." Some li tle time after Haynes saw him
writing on the paper in court for which probate was
asked, when the testat )r remarkel it wes a culion,
looking paper. Shortly More the testator's death, on
the 2941 January list, his nephew asked him if he wished
to tee his brother (the defendant) and settle his al' tir-.
Ile replied no, his affair.; were all settled, and his wife
was provi led for. Shortly after his death search was
made for his will, and the piece of paper was found in a
leather case in a box. The paper in questions is a dirty,
greasy portion cf an Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton dividend circular, in which company the tes-
tator bad some shares. The document we.; in the tes•
tator's handwriting, and was dated 11th January, 1851.
It was signed by him, and attested by two witneesee,
named West and Kemp. The p'aintiff was in a pecu-
liar position with reference to the attestati7,n of the
will. He was unable to prove if they were dead, cr
that the signatures were in their haul writing, or who or
what they were. The strictest search had been made for
them, and adverti,etnents inserted in the papers without
success. West, one of the witnesses, was believed to be
a person who was intimately acqatiated with the tes-
tator. He was believed to be a Latter day Stint, and
attended Mormon meetings, and that he had left Eng-
land for the &tit Lake, but no tidings could be obtained
of him. Kemp was supposed to have been one of the
testator's tenants at So.ners-to an, but could not be
found. On making further search after the te3tator's
death a paper was found, dated in 1849, with a similar
disposition of the property, and a third paper, dated
1831, which was previous to his marriage, and conse-
quently no mention was made of any wife. By the
paper in question he provided for his wife (who was an
elderly person) for her life, or so long as she remained
a widow ; a portion of the property was given to Haynes,
the nephew ; and the freehold property in Dorset to the
defendant. There were other legacies to other parties.
Unless the plaintiff succeeded in proving the will in
question, that of 1831 would stand good, and in that
case the widow would be left penniless.
The learned counsel then called witnesses in sup
port of the above facts.

Mr. Georzo C. -Haynes •deposed that he was nephew:
of the deceased, who was a man of strange habits. He
lived with his uncle about 12 years, and about four years
previous to hie death be asked witness if he had seen
his wiil. He replied he had not, on which deceased
said, "Then I inu,t write out another." Witness
afterwards saw him writing the document in question,
and deceased said, " I suppose the gentlemen in Doc-
tlra' commons will laugh to see such a document come
in to be administered to." Witness said be thought
they" would, and deceaged remarked, " I dare say they
have more curious documents than this come in occa-
sionally." In January, 1857, when a bill was sent in
for repairs to his property in Dorset, deceased re-
marked what a curious document it was, and said, .41/5,
Will is not so bad as that."
Mr. Barrett, in the employ of Mr. Dovism;, cheese
monger, 80., Newgate-streeriti
set, deposed to the dccament
being in deceased'A hand d
L He spoke of
er inforination of the
at-
tempts having barn
witnesses, hat With7tiatjettfif.cto i
,-(1
and referred to West
baying gone to America to join the 1U"nl "s• He
sail
West was a schoolmaster, and assisted keeping
r.
Devi'smi'a books, but .witness could not sprak to
his
handwriting.:
The,learned judge Eaid that wasimportan
and further
inquiries.must be made respecting it.:
Witness continued—He Lad been unable to procure
any document in West's handwriting cr his signature.
A. female, named Seppie, who was a niece of the de-
ceased, had Hied with him many years, and was to take
AA annuity of 251. a year under the.will, said she kne's
West wel!, aad recollected he aryl his uifis having Eng
and
to joir, the util/44ores. it he bad been gene 00n..e