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

PANY V. TLIE ROYAL MAIL STEAM COMPANY

His Honour gave judgment this morning in this case,
which was an injunction to restrain the defendants fr m
sending the ship Tasmanian to sea, or otherwise em-
ploying her in their own service, and from selling or
tran,ferriug her except under the direction a this Court.
The plaintiffs were establkhed at Wargow in S:p-
tember, 1856, as a limited compary under the Joint-
Steck 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 steamship-, one
ef which, the Tasmanian, was contracted to be built for
them in Glasgow. In July, 1857, nogotiations were-set
on foot for an amalgamation between the plaintiffs and
the defendants, the Royal Mail Stertmpacket Company,
a cotrpany incorporated by Royal charter in Soptember,
1839. It was ascertained that the proposed amaloma-
tion could not be effected without an act of Parlia-
ment, and it was determined that application ehou!d b.
made to Parliament for an act authorising the amalga-
mation of the two companies. An agreement, dated the
19th of September, 1857, was entesed 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 fur the csn
veyance of the Indian and Australian mails ; that the
vessels required for this service should be furoisbed 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
pessary stores fur the ships and receive all moneys pay-
able f 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 Lad incurred con-
siderable losses in respect of the agreement rf
September, 1857, applied to the plaintiffs for some se ell-
city for 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 2d of June last, that their affairs shoulti
be voluntarily wound up. Their existing contracts with
the Government were subsequently cancelled, and the
mandate authorising the defendants to receive the quar-
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 owneis. It was
proposed by the defendants to send her to Australia in
the course of thiB month, in restraint of which proceed-
ing the plaintiffs bad filed their bill, and now moved for
an injunction.
His Honour having, at some length, commented on
the authorities bearing on the point, said the motion
must be refused, with costs.

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

COOMDES AND HAYNES Y. COOMDES.—CURIOUS CASE.
This was 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 Gaines Combos, 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 iu Cow Cross-street, Smithfild, and was
married to the first-named plaintiff in 183 d. The second -
named plaintiff eras the deceased's nephew, and ra4ided
wit`► him for upwards of 12 years previous to his death.
The defendant, John Langhorn Coombes, is a farmer,
residing in Dorsetshire. The testator was a man of
eingulariy close and penurious habits, and observed con-
fidential relations only with his nephew, his wife being
wholly unacquainted with his pecuniary affairs ; he was
in the habit of speculating, and at his death was seisei
of a tolerable estate. About four years since the tea.
tator 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 little time after Haynes saw him
writing on the paper in court for which probate was
asked, when the testator remarked it was a cuiiou
looking paper. Shortly before the testator's death, on
the 29th January last, his nephew asked him if he wished
to see his brother (the defendant) and settle his affeire.
He replied no, his affairs were all settled, and his wife
was provided 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 question is a dirty,
greasy portion of an Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton dividend circular, in which company the tes-
tator had some shares. The document was in the tee•
tator's handwriting, and was dated 11th January, 1854.
It was signed by him, and attested by two witnesses,
named West and Kemp. The plaintiff was in a pecu-
liar position with reference to the attestation of the
will. He was unable to prove if they were dead, or
that the signatures were in their handwriting, or who or
what they were. The strictest search had been made for
them, and advertisements inserted in the papers without
success. West, one of the witnesses, was believed to be
a person who was intimately acquainted with the tes-
tator. He was believed to be a Lett sr 'ay Seint, and
attended Mormon mestlec;e, and that he had left Eng-
land for the Salt Lake, but no tidings could be obtained
of him. Kemp was supposed to have been one of the
testator's tenants at Somers-town, but could not be
found. On making %railer search after the testator'e
death a paper was found, dated in 1849, with a similar
disposition of the property, and a Uird 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 1331 would stand good, and in that
case the widow would be lift penniless.
The learned counsel then called witnesses in sup
port of the above facts.
Mr. George 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 his dea'h he asked witness if he had soec
his will. He replied he had not, on which deceased
said, "Then I must write out another." Witness
afterwards saw him writing the document in question,
and deceased said, " I suppose the gentlemen in Doc-
t r.,'-commons will laugh to see such a document owne
in to be administered to." Witness said he thought
they would, and deceased remarked, " I dare may 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 d; cement it was, and said, " My
will is not so bad as that." _ . .

Mr. Barrett, in the employ of Mr. Dovismi, cheese
monger, &0., Newgate-street, deposed to the document
being in deceased's handwriting. He spoke of ei.
te:npts having been made to discover information of the
witnesses, but without effect, and referred to \Vest
having gone to America to join the Mormons. He saL]
West was a schoolmaster, and assisted in keeping Mr.
Davismi's books, but witness could not speak to his
handwriting.
The learned judge said that was important, and further
inquiries must be made respecting it.
Witness continued—He bad been unable to procure
any document in West's handwriting cr his signature.
A female, named Seppin, wbo was a niece of the de-
ceased, had lived with him many years, and was to take
an annuity of 251. a•year under the will, said she knew
West well, and recollected he and his wife leaving Eng-
land to join the Mormons. After he had been gone some

f time n. 17+t,:; ~..-a. i.cc-weci Ly a relative, stating they
cJoid not get beyond New Orleans for want of means.
Eviderce having been given and a general character,
and the steps that Lad been taken to discover the vit-
a rePsee,

The 17arne3 judge adj-urned the cane for the produc-
ti,)n of witness, e from Mr. Devismi's to ?peak to West's
handwriting.

POLICE INTRLLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
BRUTAL ASSAULT ON A WIFE.— John Hurst, a surl: •
koking fellow, was charged with the following brutA
assault on his wife, Charlotte Hurst :
Coati iltol Hurst said she was the zile of the prisoner,
and lived at 1, Smith's-court, Soho. On the previous
day he c;tne 1 oie drunk, wh n she expo tulated
him on his conduct ; and she had no doubt she irritated
him by tolling him Ehe would leave him. He then struck
her in the face and gave her a black eye. He was not in
the habit of getting drunk.f
Mr. Beadou said it was a gross case, and sentenced
tLe prisoner to four months' hard labour.