The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-03 00:00:00

NORWICH ELECTION.

Col. FRENCH said he wished to ask a question, but as
it was a matter of privilege, he was in any case entitled to
precedence. He wished to call the attention of the house
to the peculiar position in which they then stood with regard
to the Norwich election petitions. At the general election
Mr. Schneider and Lord Bury were returned. Soon after a
petition was presented against both. Lord Bury then ac-
cepted office, and the house advisedly—for their attention
was called to the subject—assented to a new writ being,
issued. At the second election Lord Bury was again re-
turned. Two petitions were presented against this return,
and he understood they were referred to the committee ap-
pointed to try the petition against the first return ; they were
however, not proceeded with, and the committee only tried
the first ; they reported that the election of both members
was void ; that they were by their agents guilty of bribery.
The 36th clause of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act
enacted "that any candidate who shall be declared to have
been guilty of bribery by himself or his agents shall be ine-
ligible to sit for the same place during the Parliament then
in existence." This was a peculiar case, because when Lord
Bury was elected the second time no declaration had been
made that he had been guilty of bribery ; the subsequent
decision to that effect placed him in a peculiar position, and
it was desii able to have the present case decided before the
motion to issue a writ for the other seat came before the
house on Thursday. He thereforebegged to ask the Speaker
wnether the resolution that both members had been guilty
of bribery did of itself void the second election, er whether
the noble lord stood in a position similar to that so long oc-
cupied by Baron Rothschild, viz., that he retained his seat,
but could not sit or vote ? He thought the house had made
a mistake in allowing the writ to issue for the second elec-
tion, but he understood it was done on the assurance that
the parties would abide by the decision of the committee
on the first election. He begged to ask the Speaker whether
the second election was not void.
Mr. WALPOLE said that as the subject was one of great
importance, he wished to say a few words before the Speaker
answered the question put to him. The case was this—
after the general election a petition, on the ground of bri-
bery, had been presented against the return of Mr. Schneider
question then
othaegnhtartoose.swaher
he believed
sunliedveedr circumstances,ththeehouse
the Lord Bury; after that the noble lord accepted office, and
the
that it ought, and he d e ci d e
that it could be issued, believeds that the Speaker, in declaring
The greatest inconvenience
what was unquestionable law.
Suppose a number of petitions had
arise if it were not so.
opening of Parliament againstt' h been presented, at the
Treasury bench ; if the house had laid
gentlemen now on the
no writ could issue until they laid down the rule that
gentlemen accepted office they cawlecfe decided, when hon.
the house to give information cf theu nott have returned to
The general committee of electionsachviA the Government.
to consider, since
there was a second petition presented, which
- therought to take. The committee considered,ws the course
be-
lieved rightly, that they were bound to take and he the electio
petitions in the order in which they were presented • n
hence the second petition being presented on a subsequent
election, they felt that they could not, consistently with the

law, take the two petitions together. That being so, they
had nothing bat to proceed, on the first petition, and upon
that they found Lord Bury's return void, through bribety
committed by his agents. The Act of Parliament was un-
der this circumstance imperative, rendering, as it did, the
member unqualified to sit for the same place during the
same session of Parliament. The question, therefore, re-
mains, what is to be done with reference to the second peti-
tion ? Were it not so near the end of the session there would
be no difficulty in this question, for the second petition
would come on to be heard and would be determined upon.
But in the present state of affairs this would not occur be-
fore the prorogation. Under these circumstances if the
house ordered two writs to issue, it would involve itself in
a case of great difficulty. He therefore ventured to suggest
that a writ for the election of one burgess only should issue.
Sir G. GREY thought this was a very irregular discus-
sion. There was no motion before the house, and they were
discussing a matter upon a question being put to the chair.
Mr. FRENCH rose to order. If there was no motion,
the right h',n. baronet ought not to address the house.
Sir G. GREY would conclude with a motion. The hon.
gentleman put himself forward on the behalf of Lord Bury,
but he (Sir G. Grey) was given to understand by that noble
lord that he had no intention or desire to come down to take
his seat. He thought that this question ought to be more
fitly considered when—as would be the case to-morrow—
the new writ was issued, To satisfy the anxious desire of
the hon. gentleman to be in order—(a laugh)—he moved
the adjournment of the house.
Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that he should more that
no writ issue in this case until the evidence was in the
hands of Members.
Mr. FRENCH objected to the lecturing tone of the right
hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey). He had never put himself
forward as representing Lord Bury's views. He simply
brought on this question as one of privilege which he, as
an independent member, was desirous for the honour of the
house to have ventilated.

The SPEAKER said that in reply to the question of the
hon. gentleman he had to state that the question was not
one of privilege. The only answer which he could give to
the question of the hon. member was to refer him to the
act of Parliament, which alone could furnish him an
answer. (Hear; hear.) He thought that the house now
wished the subject to drop.
Sir G. GREY withdrew his motion.
THE FOREIGN DEBATE.
Lord ELCHO said that he had received a letter from his
noble friend at the head of the Government stating, that
under the severe domestic loss which he had received, the
noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not be
in his place until Monday, Under these circumstances he
could not but postpone his motion until that day, on which,
however, he hoped the noble lord would give him an oppor-
tunity of bringing it oft.
CRUELTIES TO MERCHANT SEAMEN.
Mr. M. MILNES presented a petition from James Ken-
nedy, a seaman at present in hospital at Liverpool, through
injuries which had been inflicted upon him at sea, praying
the house to take the system under which he was a sufferer
into its consideration' and to devise some remedy.
Mr. M. MILNES then rose to move that a humble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to
be graciously pleased to enter into negotiations with the Go-
vernment of the United Sta`es of America, for the purpose
of preventing the assaults and cruelties committed on mer-
chant seamen engaged in traffic between this country and the
United States, and of bringing to justice the perpetrators of
such offences, many of om escape with impunity in
consequence of the defects of the present system of inter-
national jurisdiction. In bringing this subject before the
house, he begged to state that it was a question which had
agitated large and influential bodies of men, both in Eng-
land and America. He wished to draw the attention of the
house to a large mass of crime unpunished end unchallengd ;
and to propose to show. the Government how that was to be
remedied. At present a vast deal of cruelty took place in
the vessels which plied between-this country and America.
Constantly—sometimes almost daily—occurrences of this
kind came under notice in the town of Liverpool, and the
hospitals frequently contained numerous cases of the kind.
Such, however, was the present state of the law and of our
relations with the United States, that the men who had
committed these cruelties were perfectly unchallenged.
This subject had been very ably explained in a pamphlet by
Mr. Bright, of Liverpool, and indeed the few words he
should address to the house would be but a brief resume of
it. The pamphlet was in the form of a letter, addressed to
his hon. friend the member for Bedford, by whom the sub-
ject was to have been brought forward in that house. Un-
happily, however, his hon. friend was now a member of the
Government, and hence, through our system of politics,
his talents were (except in his own department) lost to that
house and to his country. (A laugh.) As an instance of
the imperfection of the present state of the law, he would
bring to the attention of the house a case lately decided by
Baron Bramwell. In that case a man committed a murder
two miles beyond the jurisdiction of this country, and,
although the facts were proved, the learned judge could only
direct the jdry not to find a verdict. This was done, and
the man was handed over to the American consul, who at
a great expense had him and his witnesses conveyed to
America. They had no sooner got there than the witnesses
absconded, and the murderer, was, therefore, set at large.
So in another case, the operation of the laws enabled a Corsi-
can sailor to put himself beyond restraint, and this man, who
had been guilty of murder, was now at large somewhere in this
country. These cases were no doubt of a heavier kind than
many, but the ordinary cases of cruelty were so numerous
that they had obtained a name for themselves, and were
known in Liverpool as " consul's cases." From June, 1857,
to June, 1858, 138 consul's cases were taken ; from June,
1858; to the following March, 80 consul's cases occurred.
Sinctlthen 23 cases had occurred. In some of these cases

men who were engaged as stewards were put to the work of
common sailors, and were cruelly treated because they were
unfit for the work. In many of these cases the offenders
were not Americans ; in fact, in a great number the only
man in a ship against whom a charge of cruelty could not
be substantiated was the American captain. The house
would agree with him that for this state of things a remedy
ought to be found, and he believed that the people of Ame-
rica were equally desirous to find a remedy. The remedy
he would suggest was of two kinds. Itt the first place, he
thought that the powers of the consuls might be safely in-
creased so .as to give them a jurisdiction to try -offenders.
And in the next place, the tribunals of this country might
with the intervention of the Government of the United
States, be enabled to try guilty parties. With regard to the
consuls, he would remind the house that, in the origin of
the consular system, under the French Minister Colbert,
, these officers claimed the exclusive privile(re of trying French
" subjects. Without going to anything like this length in the
case of the consuls for America, a means might yet be
found of enabling them to deal with these cases. With re-
gard to the plan of extending the jurisdiction of our tribu-
nals, so that there might be some objection in the heavier
cases, but in those cases which might be disposed of by a
1 stipendiary magistrate he saw no reason why the :plan
should not be adopted. He trusted that this subject would
be taken up by the Government in a large and comprehen-
sive spirit, and that no technicalities would be allowed to
stand in the way of its settlement. He believed it would
be dealt within a fair and openmanner in the United States,
and he had seen a letter from that eminent writer, Mr.
Hawthorne, expressing an opinion that in the States
every disposition would be shown to avoid difficulties. He
had once seen in a work on international law a fantastical
notion put forward that the law relating to the high seas
must remain as variable as the sea itself. He hoped, how-
ever, that in these days it would be found not to be so, but
that the Government would be enabled so to adjust matters
on thLt greet highway that the cruelties which now dis-
graced it might, with the help of that great nation across
the water. at once and for ever cease. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. E WART seconded the motion with a few obser-
vations, but spoken in so low a tone that their purport did
not reach the gallery.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the hon. member for Pomfret had
done good service by bringing up this subject, and the evil
alleged by him to arise from the present state of international
law was under consideration. He (Sir G. Lewis) could not
admit however that the evil arose from the present state of
things, as the international law did not permit, except by
treaty, any jurisdiction to one country's tribunals over the
subjects of another for crimes committed on the high seas.
There was an extradition trettty with the United States ap-
plying to murder, arson, forgery, and one or two other
crimes committed in another country by the subjects of the
other. In this case murder, or attempt to murder, was com-
mitted in an American ship on the high seas, and conse-
quently, according to the present construction of the law,
on American territory. On touching at an English port
the offender might be handed over to the American Consul
to be sent home, but that course was seldom taken on account
of the expense. He was not amenable to the English law
any more than if the offence had been committed on the land

territory of the United States. It appeared that cruelties
were often committed in American ships on the high seas,
and the present state of the law offered no remedy. The
question then was, whether any conventioncould be entered
into with the United States so as to meet these cases. There
was one obvious way, and that was to include them in the
present extradition treaty. The objection to that was the
expense which would attend its working. Another plan
was for the United States 'to give us power to treat
such cases in English courts, the United States to have
the same power in America. It might be provided that on
the arrival of an American ship at Liverpool, and notice
being given that a crime had been committed on board, the.
English magistrates could deal with it—the same privilege
being given to America. He saw no objection to such a
treaty, nor did he think that Parliament would hesitate to
sanction it, as tke intelligence of American courts of justice
would, no doubt, giVo ample security for the fair trial of
British subjects. But there was another plan upon which
his hon. friend had touched, and that was the arming the
consul with powers to try criminals. Even that plan, if
the two Governments would consent to it, might be effec-
tual ; but he wished to remind the house that this country
had never allowed a foreign power to exercise jurisdiction
within its territory. If you gave the power to the consul'
you must give him the aid of the civil power both for arrest
and for custody, so that in any case he would be exercising
criminal jurisdiction under the English law. He would no
doubt follow the English law, and have an English barris-
ter for assessor, and therefore it would resolve itself into an
application of the English law. ilowe.ver, he quite con-
curred in the sentiments expressed by his hon. friend, and
he thought the subject one well worthy the consideration
of the house.

Mr. HENLEY said that the subjectwas one of the deep-
est importance. No doubt many offences wore committed
in American ships coming to England, and most probably
a similar number were committed in American ships going
home. He wished, therefore, that the hon. member had
told them whether there had been any or many trials of
such cases in the American courts, as their number would
be some guide as to the attention with which a proposal of
reciprocal criminal jurisdiction would probably be received
in the United States. As to the expediency of such a plan,
they must remember that if they adopted it with one nation
they could hardly refuse it to another, and then it would
become a question whether they would like to submit Eng-
lish subjects to the tender mercies of an Austrian, Spanish,
or Russian police. The consular plan involved the putting
our persons at the disposal of the officer of a foreign power.
The question was surrounded with difficulties, but the hon.
member had acted judiciously in bringing it before the
house.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the subject had
engaged the attention of the law officers of the crown for
some time, both under the present Government and its pre-
decessors. It had been the desire of both Governments to
come to some arrangement with the United States, but the
difficulty was that this Government could suggest no expe-
dient but that of submitting the cases to the ordinary civil
authorities of the country. To the proposition of giving ju-
dicial authority to the consul, he (the Attorney-General)
and his colleagues had always given the most strenuous op-
position, as he never could consent to remove the criminal
jurisdiction from the ordinary tribunals of the country.)
(Hear.) But then a reciprocal arrangement might be esta-
blished, and it was no objection to it that other nations
might ask for what was conceded to the United States. The
arrangement could only be carried out terms of perfect
equality, and these terms could not be complied with except
by a country whose forms of criminal procedure were the
same as those of England. With respect to giving authority,
to the consul, nothing was more common than for an Ame-
rican captain, on arriving At Havre or some other continen-
tal port, to go at once to his consul, charge his whole crew

with mutiny, and them all detained in prison until he was
agsin ready for sea. There were three points to which he
trusted the attention of the authorities would be directed.
First, the facilitating of the working of the extradition treaty,
now so expensive; second, to provide a reciprocal jurisdiction
for cases not included ins the treaty ; and third, the possi-
bility of establishing a summary jurisdiction in cases of dis-
pute under special contracts. He mentioned these matters
to show that he had not overlooked the subject, and he ear-
nestly hoped that the address would be productive of some
satisfactory arrangement.

,Mr. MILNES,-in reply, expressed his gratitude for the
manner in which Government had received his motion. With
respect to the number of trials in America he would remind
the right hon. member opposite that there was a great dif-
ference in the crews of inward and outward bound ships.
There was no difficulty in getting sailors to go from Europe
to America, but in manning ships to return to Europe there
was fierce competition, an extensive crimping system was
carried on, and much cruelty was practised. He hoped his
friends in the Government would not overlook the case of
the murderer, who was now at large because the authorities
of this country had no power to secure him. The powers
of the extradition treaty, which were now exclusively con-
fided to the metropolitan magistrates, should be extended
to the stipendiaries at Liverpool and the other seaports.
RIGHTS
-OF THE CROWN IN FORESHORES, &c.

Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH moved for a select Com-
mittee to inquire into the rights as claimed by the Crown
and other bodies connected with the foreshores, tidal rivers,
estuaries, and the bed of -the sea round the coasts of the
United Kingdom.
An HON. MEMBER here moved that the house be counted,
and there being only 38 members present, the house stood
adjourned at a quarter past eight..

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CqRCUIT.-DERBY, AUG. 1.

Nisi Prius Court.—(Before Chief Justice Erie and
a Special Jury.)

CREsSWELL AND OTHERS V. JACKSON AND OTHERS.
—EXTRAORDINARY WILL CASE.

Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr.
Field, for plantiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Hayes, Mr.
O'Brien, and Mr. Flowers, for the defendants.

Mr. Field opened the pleadings.
Mr. Macaulay stated the plaintiffs' case. The
cause, he said, Is as a very serious one, and as far as
the characters of five gentlemen and the pecuniary
interest of many persons were concerned its import-
ance could hardly be exaggerated. The real ques-
tion was the validity of certain codicils to the will
of Mr. George Nuttall, who originally by business
was a land surveyor. Some twenty-eight years
ago he settled at Matlock, where his grandfather
resided ; and after a time, though possessed of con-
siderable property, he carried on his business as a
surveyor, and died in 1856, leaving property worth
£2,000 a-year. Towards the latter part of his life
he did not carry on his business as a surveyor, but
was occupied principally with the affairs of the
parish as surveyor of the highways. Mr. Nuttall
was to the fullest extent a man of business, and oc-
casionally made the wills of persons with whom he
was acquainted. Notwithstanding, however, the
fact that his solicitor was also his intimate and per-
.onal friend, to him was maintained that reserve
and privacy which distinguished all Mr. Nuttall's
dealings as far as his own circumstances were con-
cerned, and the only disclosure he made was an un-
true one, when he said he was heavily in debt. To
Mr. Newbold, his professional friend, he gave no
notice of the distribution of his property, but he
often applied to him for skeleton wills, with which
he was supplied. In 1854 Mr. Nuttall's first will
was drawn out in a fluent style of handwriting by
himself, and was executed in the presdnce of two
of Mr. Newbold's clerks on the sth of September,
1854. Mr. Nuttall was suffering from a tumour on
his back, and from the above date till his death
Mr. Newbold knew nothing more about the distri-
bution of his property than the mere execution of
the will witnessed by his two clerks. On the Sun-
day, or the Monday, in the week of his death, Mr.
Nuttall was seized with a fit of paralysis, and on
the Friday died. His mother had formerly lived
with him, but being dead, a woman named Cathe-
rine Marsden, who appears to have had numerous
relations, lived with him as his housekeeper, for
many years. The Marsdens, who were cousins ;
Mr. Mellor, living at Brampton ; Mr. John Nuttall,
of London ' • the postmistress of Matlock ; Mr. Job
Knowles, of Matlock ; and Mr. Newbold, appeared
to be the only persons who could be said to have
been intimate with him, with the exception of
Mr. Else, one of the plaintiffs. Mr. Else was
married to one of the Marsdens, and he might take
it that the assumption of Mr. Nuttall's preference
for Mr. Else was found expressed in the codicils.
When he was a boy Mr. Nuttall took him up and
taught him accounts, and gradually advanced him
till he made him collector of the highway rates,
and afterwards assistant surveyor for Matlock and
for Darley, and no one doubted that Mr. Else
would be largely benefited by Mr. Nuttall's will.
A few days before the 7th of March, 1856, Mr.
Nuttall was seized with the fatal attack from
which he died on the Friday. On the evening of
his death Mr. Newbold was sent for, the object
being to search in the deceased's bedroom for the
will. In the bedroom was a large cupboard, in
which, in a bundle of tithe receipts, was a gummed
envelope, which was found to contain a duplicate
of the will executed in Mr. Newbold's office, and
in the presence of his two clerks. Mr. Robert
Cresswell, Mr. John Marriott, and Mr. John
Nuttall were executors, and the two first-named
were sent for, as they lived in the neighbourhood.
The door of this room was then locked and the
key taken away by Mr. Marriott. In consequence
of a statement made by Mr. Job Knowles a further
search was made in the cupboard on the day of the
funeral, and either Mr. Marriott or Mr. Cresswell
found in a printed book a duplicate of the will exe-
cuted in September, 1854, and on the paper which
enclosed the will were these words, " This is my
rigt will," and of that mis-spelling probably more
would be heard in the course of the case, as his
learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Haves, intended to
object to the validity of the codicils on the ground
of some orthographical mistakes which would be
pointed out. The grounds upon which the codicils
were disputed imputed nothing less than
conspiracy, forgery, and felony against four
attesting witnesses and against other gentle-
men, including the executors and professional ad-
visers. In one of the duplicates would be found an
interlineation giving £lOO a year to Mr. John
Else, and £5O a year to Miss Marsden, and this ,
Mr. Newbold's clerks said, had not been shown to
them, and therefore it was without effect. After
the second duplicate had been found, in conse-
quence of Mr. Knowles making a further observa-
tion, another search was made in• the cupboard,
but nothing was found. Mr. Else, who afterwards
occupied the house in which Mr. Nuttall had lived,
being out of town, the contents of the cupboard
were sent to Mr. Newbold's office. In the deceased's
bedroom there was a large desk containing some
bundles of papers, which were sent to Mr. Else's
house without his knowledge, by Mr. Newbold.
Till the 21st of April, nothing was known of any
other testatory paper except the two wills; but on
that day Mr. Newbold sent word to. Mr. Else to
search among the desk papers for some vouchers,
and as he.was doing so he found an envelope ghm-
med up, and addressed, in the handwriting of a
gentleman who would be called, to " G. Nuttall,
Esq., Matlock," and when that was opened it was
found to contain a testamentary paper, which would
be called codicil number one, and an epitome of the
will, all in the handwriting of the deceased. The
epitome set forth that the executors were R. Cress-
well, John Marriott, and John Nuttall ; and also
contained a list of 30 persons to whom his resi-
duary property was left, with " three fields at
Darley to J. E. They hat, then, the remarkable
fact that with the epitome of the will was found
the first codicil, all in the writing of the testator.
Without knowing what the case for the defendants
would be, he took leave to say that the codicils 3,
2, and 1 must stand or fall together. In the origi-
nal will of 1854, the testator had left the house of
his occupation to Catherine Marsden for life, and
the remainder to Mr. Nuttall, of London. By
the codicil number one he devised it after
the life of Mr. Nuttall, to Mr. Else. Two
other persons were largely endowed by the
original will ; one of these, a Miss Shelden,
afterwards Mrs. Ashworth, had been the service
of his mother, and another was a Mrs. Blackshaw,
but upon these legacies were annuities to Mrs. Else
and Mrs. Marsden. The codicil number one was
signed by two of Mr. Nuttall's men servants wno
witnessed it, and who notwithstanding any different
tale they might tell now, had told Mr. Newbold
thee they saw Mr. Nuttall sign the paper before
they put their names to it, and they also made an
affidavit to that effect. This was necessary, as in
the attesting clause there was a slight impropriety,
inasmuch as it did not state that both the attesting
witnesses were present when the testator signed
By these proceedings the men, like most of their
class, having become aware that there was a slight
imperfection in the codicil, entertained an idea that
a large property was dependent on their will and
pleasure, but at this time neither of them gave out
any intimation of tiny irregularity in the attesta-
tion. The names of these two men, who would be
_(
called, were Buxton and Gregory. In June, 181;n,
one of them reproached Mr. Else, by telling d
t be
hat n ay o s
o gentlemanto biin he if d askedwould hsianly his
master sign. Inquiries were made after t_
tleman, but he never appeared again. . In
1857,
Gregory, who was retained in the service 0 m
ihfeldrdonwors:ee
It
saw the paper signed." Mr. Else indignantly
is
very Else, saidb a
hard
do
wMer. E
havel s e
had, Buxtonnothing being
.for
r present,
sa3,ing "\
or-
dered him off the premises, and he had neverbeen
on them since. When Mr. Else returned from turn
then Mr.
ittbiginGgrlei„kssoermy.boafft
Gregorytlie oundb,aßduxsatiodn, repeateda
Else, believing thet the two were conspirins•s.,
ttbogtheeniaegr,isttroaotkeetholeorka,dvbiacte
iotf M
ed not to
wasr.dNeoeidwbold and

prefer a criminal charge against them, and Bux-
ton was also that day discharged from Mr. Else's
service. The importance of this part of the
case was immense. Two men had clearly signed
the codicil with their own hands, and • after-
wards they sought to make money of their know-
ledge. He supposed that Mr. Hayes would not
contend that these men did not sign in the presence
of Mr. Nuttal, or that they signed it at Mr. Else's
dictation, but there could be no other objection to
it. By this time Mr. Else had become the surveyor
of highways for Matlock, and wanting a book
which it was known Mr. Nuttall had possessed,
search was made for it among those conveyed to
Mr. Newbold's office. After some trouble the book
was found, and on being opened by Mr. Newbold,
jun:, was found to contain a paper pinned inside
and endorsed " codicil number two.' The proper
steps were taken to have this opened in the pre-
sence of the executors and then it was found to be
attested by Mr. Job Knowles and Mr. Adams, a
surgeon of many years' standing in Matlock. The
codicil No. 2 was dated 6th of January, 1856, and
wrapped in it was found a piece of paper, contain-
ing an extract upon a religious subject in the hand-
writing of the deceased. This extract it would be
proved the decceased read to a gentleman on the
very day the codicil was signed, and both Mr.
Adams and Mr. Knowles would tell the jury the
circumstances by which they were able to fix the
date of signing it. As the two codicils had been
discovered, the parties whose situations under the
will were altered by them were duly informed of
the fact, and no opposition was then expressed, nor
was any imputation cast by them upon the gen-
uineness of the documents; and if it had not been
for the surmises and hole-pickings of a professor of
writing who gets his living by throwing doubts
upon title-deeds, there would not have been any
Chancery suit or assize cause. Nine months after
the discovery of codicil number two there came to
light codicil number three, which did not make any
very material alteration in the position of parties
to the will, its effect being to make Mr. Else resi-
duary devisee instead of Mr. Nuttall, of London.
Some months after the death of Mr. Nuttall, Mr.
Else occupied his house, and at the back,
over a stable, there was a room which it was said
Mr. Nuttall had used as a sort of a den for him-
self alone. Mr. Else employed a lad to clean this
room, which was very dirty and covered with cob-
webs. The window was a high one, and before
the lad commenced his cleaning, Mr. Else, in the
presence of the boy, attempted to open the window,
when the window board or seat came out, and he
nearly fell backwards. He was putting the board
back into its place, when the lad cried out, " What's
that ?" and on looking. under the board in a narrow
recess they saw an earthenware jar, which they
took out. In the presence of the boy Mr. Else
took out of the jar a paper packet, around which
wrapped a canvas purse containing 20 sovereigns.
Mr. Newbold was sent for, and in the presence of
the proper parties the packet was opened, and
codicil three was found attested, as number two
had been, by Mr. Adams and Mr. Knowles, who
would prove the attestation without fail. Buxton
and Gregory would also be called, and would be
constrained to swear, as they had done twice be-
fore, that they signed the codicil number one. The
estates in the regular way were all put up for sale
by auction, when notice was given by the Nuttalls
to the purchasers not to compete. A suit in Chan.
eery followed, and the Court had ordered the issue
to be tried before a jury. A number of witnesses
were called in support of the plaintiff's case as
stated above, which occupied the Conrt until its
rising at eight o'clock in the evening.