The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Feb. 10.

HOUSE OF LORDS.---APPEAT S.
THE GREAT THELLIISSON WILL ASE.

Their lordships assembled this morn ng for the
first time as a judicial tribunal durin 4 the present
session for the special purpose of proceeding with
the extraordinary will cause of Thellusson and
Thellusson.

Thomas Robarts Thellusson, appellant, v. Abra-
ham Wildey Robarts, Edward James Dawkins,
Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson, the Right
Hon. Frederick William Brook, Baron Rendlesham
(an infant), and the Hon. Arthur Thellusson (since
deceased), respondents.
The Hon. Arthur Thellusson (since deceased),
appellant, v. Abraham Wildey Roberts, Edward
James Dawkins, the Right Hon. Frederick William
Brook, Baron Rendlesham, Thomas Roberts Thel-
lusson, and Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson,
respondents.
These two appeals from the decision of the
Master of the Rolls involved the construction of
one of the strangest wills ever recorded, and which
for upwards of sixty years has been the subject of
a long and expensive litigation for the once-colossal
fortune of the testator, Peter Thellusson, of Brads-
worth, in the county of York, Esq. The testator
made his will in 1796, and died in 1797. leaving
three sons—Peter Isaac, George Woodford, and
Charles—and several grandsons. After several
small bequests, he devised all his real estates, of
the value of upwards of £60,000, to certain trus-
tees, together with a large personal property, to
be invested in the purchase of land upon certain
trusts, the substance of which was, that all rents
and profits were to accumulate and to be laid out
in the purchase of real property during the lives of
his three sons and his grandsons, then living or
born in due time after his death. In fact, none of
his sons or his grandsons then living could inherit
his wealth, his object
being to found three great
fortunes, of which his less immediate representa-
tives were to be the possessors. At the time of the
testator's death, there were nine persons in exist-
ence during whose lives the accumulations were
directed to continue, namely, Peter Isaac, the tes-
tator's eldest son, created Baron Rendlesham in
18.06; George Woodford, his second son; Charles,
his third son ; five sons of Peter Isaac, namely,
John, George, Henry, William, none of whom left
Issue, and Frederick, whose son Frederick William
is the present Baron Rendlesham, one of the re-
spondents : Arthur, the son of Peter, was born in
1801, after the death of the testator, and has died
since these appeals were brought. He has left one
son, Arthur, who has revived the appeal. The
ninth person was Charles, who was the last sur-
vivor of the nine lives, who died in 1856. He was
the eldest son of Charles, the third son of Peter
Thellusson, and has left one son, Charles Sabine
Thellusson, one of the now respondents ; George
Woodford, the second son, left no issue. The great
contest is as to the true construction to be placed
on the words, " eldest lineal male descendant," whe-
ther " eldest" is to be taken in its legal or natural
sense. The litigants are the grandsons of the tes-
tator, who are the appellants, and the respondents are
his great-grandsons, and the question in point of
fact is, which line comes within the term " eldest."
The will became the subject of proceedings in the
Court of Chancery, which in 1801 declared the
devises and limitations in the will to be good, and
directed the trusts to be carried out under the di-
rection of the court. The testator's eldest son was
declared entitled, as heir at law, to the real estate
purchased by the testator between the period when
he made his will. The House of Lords affirmed
this decree. In accordance with the terms of the
the will, the three sons of the testator presented, in
turn, to certain family livings. In 1820, when all
the sons were dead, Henry Hoyle Oddie claimed
the right of presentation. He was the son of the
only married daughter of the testator's second son,
George Woodford, and claimed as the eldest male
lineal descendant. This became the subject of a
fresh suit of Oddie v. Woodford, and their lord-
ships' house, on appeal, held that being descended
through a female, Oddie did not answer the de-
scription of " the eldest male lineal descendant."
On the death of Charles, the last survivor of the
nine lives, which occurred in 1856, the time as
designed by the testator for the partition of the
estates arrived, and there being no male lineal
descendants of George Woodford, the testator's
second son, Baron Rendlesham, the respondent,
filed a bill, praying he might be entitled to one
moiety of the estates as " the eldest lineal male
descendant" of Peter Isaac, the testator's eldest son.
The other respondent, Charles Sabine Augustus,
also filed a bill, praying to be entitled to the other
half of the estates, as " the eldest male lineal de-
scendant" of Charles, the third son of the testator.
The appellants, Thomas and Arthur (the latter of
whom is since deceased), also filed bills, praying
that they, as the grandsons, and " eldest male"
surviving issue of the testator, when the estate be-
came divisable, might be declared entitled to the
estates. The Master of the Rolls declared the
respondent, Lord Rendlesham, to be entitled to one
moiety of the estate as " eldest male lineal descend-
ant" of Peter Isaac, and the respondent Charles
Sabine Augustus to the other moiety, as the " eldest
male lineal descendant" of Charles, the third and
youngest son of the testator. Against this decision
the present appeals were brought.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. N. Palmer were heard for the
respondents.
Their lordships then adjourned the further
hearing.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
,'Sittings at Nisi Prins after Term at Westmin
ster, before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.)
DICKSON V. THE EARL OF WILTON.-LIBEL.

This was an action for libel, brought by Lieut.-
Colonel Dickson, late of the Tower Hamlets Militia,
against the Earl of Wilton, colonel of that force.
The alleged libel was contained in a letter addressed
by the defendant to the Viscount Combermere, and
in an oral communication which the defendant
made to Mr. Thomas Duncombe, M.P., and was to
the effect that the plaintiff had misappropriated the
regimental funds.

'rho defendant pleaded not guilty and a justifica•
tion.

Mr. Edwin Jarßes, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Cole
ridge were for the plaintiff; and the Attorney.
General, Mr. Collier, Mr. Millward, and Mr. West
represented the defendant.

Mr. James in opening the case said the plaintiff,
Lieut.-Colonel Dickson, was a soldier and a man of
honour, and the defendant, the Earl of Wilton, the
colonel of the Tower. Hamlets Militia regiment,
which was embodied in March, 1855. The noble
lord receivod his coloneley from the late Duke of
Wellington, but until that time he had never seen
any service--

" never set a squadron in the field,
Nor the division of a battle knows
More than a spinster."
The complainant, however, had served in India and.
Spain during the war. e had also held an ap-
pointment at the Cape of Good Hope, and been alto-
gether about 33 years in her Majesty's army. On the
10th July, 1846, Mr. Dickson was appointed major of
the regiment in question by the late Duke of AVel-
lington. After the outbreak of the war with Rus-
sia, in 1855, the regiment was embodied and called.
out. It assembled first at Bethnal-green, after-
wards removed to Woolwich, where it encamped.
In March, 1855, the plaintiff became the lieutenant-
colonel, and being a man thoroughly knowing his
profession, he did all he could during the year's
service to render the regiment efficient, and to raise
its military character, and he was beloved by all
the men in the ranks with whom he came in com-
munication. In militia regiments there was what
was called a regimental mess, which was formed by
the contributions of the officers and by a bonus or
gift of the Government at the rate of £25 for each
company. For a long time, while the regiment was
at Woolwich, there was no regular mess ; the offi-
cers messed with the officers of the artillery, each
paying his quota; but an independent mess for the
regiment having been ultimately formed, it became
necessary to have china, table linen, and various
other
articles and these were ordered by the Earl
of Wilton, tlleprincipal portion of them being sup-
plied by
Messrs.Sharpus and Company, and
Messrs. Hodgeand
Lowman. For the expense of
these articles, the officersatof the regiment are liable,
but they failed to pay respective proportions
The amount owing toy h
Messrs. Sharpus for goods
supplied to the regiment
s £5BO odd, and they
f
sued the Earl of Wilton orthat sum. 11. was
extremely annoyed. at this, and,
con-
venient for him at that time it not being to pay the money he
gave a judge's order for its payment in six k
andxvhi
cwohne et
hse,
which expired on the Bth of May,lBsB,
26th of that month he penned the libels
regiment
con-
stituted the foundation of this action. The re
was disbanded in May, 1856, and these liabilities
were those of the officers, who hoped that the regi-
ment would be re-embodied in the following year,
and intended probably to discharge them after that
event, and the Earl of Wilton was constantly writing
to Col. Dickson requesting him to come to him and
see if the creditors could not be staved off for an-.
other year. The libel was contained in a letter which
the Earl of Wilton addressed to Viscount Comber-
mere, who, however, according to army routine,
had nothing to do with the matter, and therefore it
could not properly be called a privileged communi-
cation • but if it could, that defence would fail, be-
cause the Earl of Wilton had placed a justification
on the record, and the jury would have to say whe-
ther Col. Dickson had or had not been guilty of a
paltry embezzlement. The letter was clearly not
written honestly and with a bona fide desire for
Inf_luir3',ut evidently to injure a gentleman against
117.1444 W lordship had taken 4 most unfounded and