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

AUGUST 2.

The case was resumed at nine o'clock this morn-
ing, when

Sergeant Hayes addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendants. They had to try the validity of
three distinct documents, and to solve the question
as to whether or not two of these documents were not
in the handwriting of at least two individuals. Now
the question which the.jury_would have to decide was
whether the plaintiff, Mr. Else, was to be believed in
his statement that he found the codicil in a jar, or
whether they considered on the other hand that
they were not the genuine documents of the tes-
tator. Else must make out, if he could, that they
were the genuine documents of the testator. The
learned counsel then proceeded to analyse the
evidence brought forward on the part of the plain-
tiffs, beginning with the original will of the late
Mr. Nuttall, of London. He naturally gave his
house and furntiure to Ann Marsden, who had been
his housekeeper, and after her death to go to his
nephew, John Nuttall, of London. In the codicilit
was altered to be left to John Else and Ellen
Marsden, his wife. Thetestator had also a lease of
some mines at Motteram, in Cheshire, and these
were left entirely to John Else, assistant overseer
of the parish of Matlock, but were subject to pay-
ing several legacies as follows :—To John Nuttall,
of London, £4O yearly; Sampson Roe, £4O yearly ;
Catherine Higleton, £4O; a legacy of £4O yearly to
Ann Dobson, and £4O yearly to Wm. Nuttall, of
Derby. His leaving these mines to Else showed
that he had a natural affection for him" There was
also a devise of certain property at Ashover to Eliza
Blackshaw, and at her death to go to John Nuttall,
of London. There was also a devise of houses at
Ashover, to Miss Maria Treviss, assistant post-
mistress at Matlock. The next devise was a most
valuable on t ; it was property at Brockhurst, to
Sarah, daughter of Samuel Holmes, a servant of his
mother's. The property at Bonsall and Matlock,
Wensley, and Snitterton' he left to Elizabeth Shel-
don; it appearing that he did not know whether
her husband was dead or alive. Now the codicils
transferred this valuable property to John Else ;
and he would say that that devise had been tam-
pered with, and that the interlineation had been put
in by some one and not by Mr. Nuttall. To the
original will (A) he wished most particularly to call
their attention. It was the beginning of this mys-
terious case. They had heard that Mr. Nuttall's
papers were all kept in the cupboard ; it was there
that the original will was found, but it was not there
that the codicils were found. Mr. Nuttall had been
dead some time when one codicil was found, and
afterwards there was the discovery of another one
in the mysterious jar in the above hay chamber.
And here he would remark upon the fair way iu
which Mr. Newbold had given his evidence; but
every one who knew Mr. Newbold could not ex-
pect otherwise from a straightforward honourable
man of business. Mr. Newbold saw him a few days
before his death, when lie attempted to get to the
closet, but could not. He died, and in that closet
was found the will produced, but no codicils. But
in a week afterwards they have Job Knowles. Job
Knowles says, " There is something else to be
found." He makes mysterious statements, and
directly afterwards a search is made and a codicil
is found, on which is written, " This is my rigt'
will." The question for the jury to decide was,
who put it there, and from what motive ? In this
will there are interposed the words, " Subject to the
ready payment of £lOO annually to Job Else, and
£5O annually to Catherine Marsden," after be-
queathing the Matlock property and Bonsall pro-
perty to Mrs. Sheldon. Would Mr. Nuttall have
done such a thing as order 'a payment of £l5O
a year out of a life interest ? The next event is
the visit of Mr. John Nuttall, of London, whose
children he (Sergeant Hayes) represented. Mr.
Nuttall examined the property, and left the manage-
ment of matters to Mr. Else, but unfortunately Mr.
John Nuttall, who waa engaged by Sir Joseph
Pax-
ton to erect a mansion a long way off, died
in the
April following in Paris, leaving six
young
child-
ren. Soon after another codicil was found,with
particulars of property at Bonsall and epitome of
his will, all gummed up in an old envelope. Mr.
Nuttall was a business man. Why did he not go
to his closet in his bedroom, take out the will,
and attach the codicil to it ? [The learned ser-
geant read the codicil, which gives an annuity of
'
£5O to Mr. Newbold, and property
to Mr. Thos.
solicitor, and
Newbold, son of Mr. Newbold,
leaving legacies to John Else and Catherine
Marsden.] 'Who (said the learned counsel) found
the codicil ? Else. Who benefits by . Else and
Marsden, and the two Mr. Newbolds. If that was
nt, why should a large property
be left to youn,cr
a genuine docuineNewbold ? Why did he leave £5O
Newbold ? If he had been desirous
a year to Mr. ew
legacies, why not include
them leave those gentlemen
them in that long list of annuitants who had been
mentioned in the original
will. P The motives of
the writer of the codicil, in inserting Mr. Newbold's
name therein, was to get that gentleman's interest
in endeavouring to prove that the codicil was the
genuine document of the testator. Who was the
witness to this codicil ? Job Knowles, to whom a
legacy had been left. The learned counsel then
called attention to the handwritifig of the codicil,
and to the bad spelling of *he same. Was it con-
sistent to think that Mr. Nuttall, a man of intern-
.. Bence and business, could possibly make such misi-
takes ? He (Sergeant Hayes) unhesitatingly said
it was impossible that he could have written that
document. The first codicil was proved by Buxton
and Gregory, and 'there was no doubt that they,
have made two statements. He (Sergeant Hayes)
had examined them in the Court of, Chancery, and
they both said they did not see Mr. Nuttall sign it,
and that afterwards they received £2O each from
Mr. Else. He contended that evidence given by
men who told two different tales could not esta-
blish the validity of a codicil even if they swore—
to use a familiar but a vulgar term—" until they
were black in the face." He (Sergeant Hayes) was
not there to convict any one of forgery, but he said
the codi4il was nor the genuine document of the
testator. Gregory and Buxton were just the sort
of persons that could be induced to
assist
in such
matters, but from the various statements they h
a
made no reliance could be placed upon them. In

passing on to notice the second codicil he would re-
mark that the plaintiff's witnesses admitted that
they were not written in the style of handwriting
usually adopted by Mr. Nuttall. Besides the papers
found with the first codicil, it was stated that what
was called an epitome was also found. It appears
that this opitome was written at two different times.
The first part was a summary of the will, and the
name of every annuitant. It gives the names of
executors, R. Cxesswell, J. Marriott, and John
Nuttall. But, stuck in a corner, and evidently put
in afterwards, was "J.E. G. odel." And lower
down the name of an original legatee had been
erased, and the word "J. E. Newbold" inserted.
It was perfectly conclusive that it could not have
been written by the testator, but it was put along
with the codicil, in order to give a colouring of
genuineness to it. With regard to the second codi-
cil, why was.it not with the will ? Why was it not
with the first codicil ? The learned sergeant then
alluded to the mysterious finding of the second
codicil in a highway book by Mr. Else at Mr.
Newbold's office, and pinned in the book along with
a pie:e of paper, on which was written a religious
sentiment. The absurd tale of the finding he left
for the jury to say whether they believed or not.
Else stood about in Newbold's office for about an
hour, when all at once they pick up a book, and
" Bless my soul, it is a codicil !" He agreed
with his learned friend, that all these codicils must
stand or fall together; they were all found in the
same miraculous manner, under the same mysterious
circumstances, and composed of the same wretched
orthography. In this wonderful codicil the word
contiguous is spelt " contigaous." Would Mr. Nut-
tall, an educated man, write thus ? The learned
counsel called the attention of the jury to the wrong
spelling of the words in this codicil. This codicil
was discovered on the 16th of December, in the
year following Mr. Nuttall's death. Was not the
second codicil from the same mint as the first ?
Was it not in the same handwriting as the first ?
The same orthography ; the same blunders ; and the
same liberal bequests to Else? Let them just look
at the evidence of the medical man, the old gentle-
man 67 years of age, and very deaf, who was the
witness to the signing of the codicil along with
Knowles; he says that it was on a Saturday night
that he put his hand to a something, but had not
the slightest idea of what it was. He said if it
had not been so small he should have thought it
had been a will. Was the story credible ? He
had no hesitation in' saying it was not—it was
morally impossible. Besides, he contended that
the story of Knowles contradicted that of Adams.
Knowles said he told Adams that they had wit-
nessed an alteration in Nuttall's will, whilst Adams
Laid that he had not the slightest idea what he had
been signing; The learned counsel then proceeded
to argue that Mr. Adams, being probably in very
poor circumstances, had been induced to lend him-
self to something which he ought not to have done.
He would say that the codicil was not written by
Mr. Nuttail, and Mr. Adams did not witness the
signing of it. With regard to Job Knowles, he
seemed to have always been in the mess. Every
codicil that is found, Job Knowles is there. He
knows everything, and throws out dark hints of
other documents still to be found. Job Knowles,
when asked why he did not state that there were
other codicils, said "he thought it would be a
breach of confidence." But it turns out that in the
Second codicil Job Knowles' son gets an annuity of
£2O per year. In the first codicil Mr. Newbold's
son gets it, in the second codicil Mr. Knowles' son
•
gets
it. And now they approached the third act in
this extraordinary drama—the finding of the third
codicil. Nine months after the second codicil had
been found the discovery of the third took place. It
had been buried in a place where no one could find
it, but by a miracle it had fortunately been disco-
vered. Why was not this codicil placed with the
others ? Like the other codicils, something was
found with it to give it authenticity. In the other
codicils papers were attached ; with this 20 sove-
reigns were found. It is dated in January, and one
year and nine months elapsed before it was found.
" The only man servant," the boy they examined
yesterday, was taken up by Else to clean the win-
dow in the room over the stable. He had never been
there before; and on being asked if he had seen
Mr. Else in tile room, said, " Yes, he had seen him
there once, a few' days previous." He stood close to
the window. Could they have better evidence
against Else ; nay, could not the jury at once ima-
gine they saw Mr. Else " planting" the jars. The
lad was taken into the room; Else seizes the board,
and the cry is at once raised, " Hollo, what is
this ?" The learned counsel read the codicil, which
took away all the property that had been for-
merly devised to her, and transferred it to
John Nuttall, stonemason ; Mrs. Sheldon to
receive an annuity of £3O a year for life. In the
-same codicil the property that had been formerly
devised to Mrs. Blackshaw was revoked, and the
same to be left to John Nuttall, of London, or else-
where, stonemason. Did the jury think that Mr.
Nuttall would do so gross a thing as to take away
the property he had devised to those parties ? But
of course Catherine Marsden, the wife of Else, is
thought of. She is to have an annuity of £5O a
year, and Else is to have the residue. In all the
codicils Catherine Marsden and Else are rather
taken care of. In conclusion, did they believe, know-
ing what Mr. Nuttall was doing in his lifetime;
could they say that he was the author of the codi-
cils ? Why all this change ? Why was everything
to be left to Else and Marsden—Marsden and Else ?
Why should it be taken from those to whom it was
devised ? It looked to him to be utterly impossible
that these documents represented the real will of
Mr. Nuttall at the time of his death. If the jury
were not satisfied with the codicils they must give
the defendants a verdict. That verdict would not
involve a charge against any one. If it had been
in the other court it would have been otherwise. A
deal had been said of the testator's handwriting,
but he would call before them witnesses who were
familiar with his handwriting, and who would state
positively that the handwriting of the codicils was
not the writing of Mr. Nuttall. They were not
bound to make out a case against Mr. Else ; they
were only bound to prove that the codicils were not
the genuine instrument of Mr. Nuttall. Some letters
had been put into Mr. Else's hands, and hth e
hadadmittedforged
they were in his handwriting ;anwdhttla ouhrhede
(the learned sergeant) would not say
th
pe cmo dri. ci
Elsehe h
awdo üblede
na slk2 wy
ehao;
swi
na s
hism o aiwt
pb,
ol ey oa
nd
coi
was familiar with his handwriting. Who could imi-
tate the writing so. well aTs
hJeohgnreEatlesset?gaWinhe.r) would
benefit by the codic
be John Else. Again. the blunders in the spelling.
He would read some letters written by Mr. Else to
show that lie did make great blunders. (A letter to
Mr. Jackson from Mr. Else was read, in which a
number of words were spelt wrong.) Otherwise it
was a tolerably well written letter. Please was
o plea.," wait was written " wate." The plaintiffs
had got papers without end belonging to Mr. Nut-
tall. Let them find one if they can that is not per-
fectly spelt. Further, there was something stronger
than what he had alluded to as to the handwriting
of Else. He held in his hand a county court sum-
mons served by Else, and endorsed by him, in
which he says, " served the daughter"--the very
same spelling of the word that was found in the
word daughter is spelt by Else " daughter." He
(the learned counsel) could find twenty other cases,
but as Else admitted they were in his handwritinc,
it was not necessary to prove more of them. The
learned counsel concluded by expressing his con-
fidence that the jury, under all the circumstances,
would give a verdict for the defendants (The
learned serjeant's address to the jury occupied four
hours in delivering.)

The case was proCeeding when our report left.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—HEREFORD, August 2.
.THE MURDER AT LEDBURY.
John Isaac Jones, 26, attorney's clerk, was ar-
raigned on a charge of murdering Mrs. Harriett
Baker, by choking and strangling her, at Ledbury,
on the 17th May last.
The prisoner, who appeared collected but exces-
sively pale, pleaded not guilty. --
Mr. Skinner stated the case for the prosecution
at some length, and the evidence was just begin-
ning when our parcel was despatched.
Mr. Powell explained the course the prosecution
intended to take—to show the position of the pre-
mises, and the things contained in them, the person
who saw the deceased last alive, the person who
saw the prisoner next in the morning, his conduct
then, and the subsequent events.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—IPswicH, August 2.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
FARROW V. WHITEHEAD.—LIBEL.
Mr. Couch and Mr. Metcalfe were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Mills and Mr. Bulwer appeared
for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this case formerly lived at Fram-
lingharn , in this county, and carried on the business
of a tailor, a draper, and outfitter there. The action
was brought to recover from the defendant, a miller,
residing in the same town, damages for a libel he,
as correspondent to the Ipswich Express and Essex
and Suffolk Mercury, had caused to be inserted in
that paper on the 13th of July, 1858, to the follow-
ing effect:—
FRAMLINGHAAL—THE LATE CHILD MURDER.
—Frrnn inquiries made on Sunday last we are in-
formed that the young woman. Jane Ellen Farrow,
is improving in health, and it is thought will be
sufficiently recovered to take her trial. We are
also credibly informed that during her affliction she
has been treated in an almost inhuman manner by
her parents, which naturally leads to various re-
ports being circulated in the town." The plaintiff
and among them
had a family of several daughters,

was one named Jane Ellen, who superintended the
millinery business carried on at the plaintiff's.
Unhappily Jane Ellen formed an intimacy with a
man in the neighbourhood, and the result was she
became pregnant. On the 24th of June last the
dead body of an infant was discovered in a drawer
in a room of the plaintiff's,, but how it came there
subsequent events did not show. A coroner's inqu::st
jury
finding held, and the inquiry terminated in the
finding a verdict of" Wilful murder" against Jane
Ellen Farrow, the daughter of the plaintiff. The
daughter, then accused of the murder of her child,
was so ill at the time as not to be able to leave her
father's house, • and a police constable was always
with her until a' day or two before the day of her
trial, When she was removed to Ipswich gaol. In
the charge to the grand jury the learned judge who
then presided advised them to throw out the bill so
far as it charged her with the capital offence, and
the grand jury did so. The young woman was even-
tually tried on the minor charge, and after a long
inquiry she was acquitted. From inquiries insti-
tuted after the appearing of the libel complained of,
the editor of the Express admitted that the defend-
ant was the author of the paragraph. Evidence was
then given to show that the plaintiff had applied
through himself and his solicitor, to the defendant
to make an apology.
Mr. Sulley, the editor and proprietor of the
Ipswich Express and Essex and Suffolk Mercury,
in his cross-examination, said the defendant was a
regular correspondent to his newspaper. The
paragraph in question, he said, had been inserted
inadvertently. If witness had read the paragraph
on its receipt he should not have permitted its in-
sertion, as his communication with the plaintiff
would show. The paper circulation is from 1,000
to 1,200.

The plaintiff, in his examination in support of his
case, said he had been in business at Framlingham
for upwards of 30 years, and that since the allegeo;
libel had appeared in the Ipswich Express he had
lost his trade, and that he now resided in Ipswich.
Mr. Mills cross-examined the plaintiff at Borne
length, but failed in his endeavour to get the plain"
tiff to admit that he had treated his daughter un-
kindly, as had been represented in the paragraph
in question.
Mr. Mills having addressed the jury, submitting
that the defendant had been justified in writing
the paragraph in question, consequent upon the
rumours prevalent at the time at Framlinghara,
then called witnesses, for the defence. •
The defendant said he 'was the regular correspon-
dent of the Ipswich Express. He had been informed
by several persons of the mode in which the plain-
tiffs daughter had been treated by her'parents--
conduct of the most inhuman kind. Before the action
was brought he offered to make an apology and
pay the sum of £5, and since the action has been
brought he had likewise offered to make an apology
in three of the local newspapers of the county, all
of which offers had been refused. Had no ill-feel-
ing, grudge, or malice against the plaintiff when
the paragraph was sent to the Ipswich Express.
Made inquiries of Inspector Sporle as to the treat-
ment the girl received in her father's (the plain-
tiff's) house.
Mr. James Larner, a woollen-draper, Framling-
ham, said he had heard " dozens" of rumours every
day to the effect of great irregularity in the plain'
tiff's house, that the police had to interfere for the
sake of comfort in the daughter's sick room—that
the plaintiff's daughter had been denied the use
of things that were needful two or three days after
the "melancholy occurrence."
Inspector Sporle, of the Framlingham district'
I was entrusted with a coroner's warrant on June
25, 1858, to apprehend the plaintiff's daughter. On
the 26th July she was removed to Ipswich. I en-
gaged nurses to attend upon her. I paid for the
necessaries she had. I heard a rumour from one of
the nurses that she wanted necessaries.
The Judge—That is not a rumour. (Laughter.)
Witness (examination continued)—Had a police..
man there continual y. I have on one or two occa-
sions admonished the plaintiff with reference to his
conduct towards his daughter. Had been called to
account by respectable inhabitants of Framlingham
for not removing the daughter from her father 'S
house in consequence.
The Judge—But these are not rumours.
S. J. Brown, Independent minister at Framlinfr
ham, deposed to the rumours in circulation at Frani-
lingham during the period in question, with refer-
ence to the conduct of the plaintiff towards his sick
daughter.
Mr. Mills having summed up defendant's case,
and Mr. Couch having replied,
His lordship, in summing up, said it was for the
jury to say what amount of damages the plaintiff
was entitled to.

The jury found for the plaintiff—damages £5.
The Judge refused to stay execution.

COUNTRY MARXBTB.

BRISTOL--Aua. 2.
In the sales of wheat at to-day's market an advance of 1!
was obtained on late rates. Barley a slow sale, at is per
qr. decline. Oats 6d to is lower. Beans and peas at late
quotations. Flour in demand.

SHEFFIELD—AUG. 2.
At this day's market there was a fair supply of wheat,
and holders commenced by requiring an advance, which.
however, was not conceded. Ultimately a moderate bug'
ness was done at fully last week's prices. There was
chang in other kinds of grain, except oats, which were
somewhat lower. Flour prices unaltered.
Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...l6s 6d to 17s ,s6,a
White ...18s 6d to 20s 12i
Beans ...18s Od to 210 IA

Peas, per qr 43 83 ss Odo d
to
4): 643 5
si ode' d
Grinding barley, per qr
Malting ditto, „ 33s Od to 35s °d
Oats 7,
Millers' prices for flour-1s 6d, is Bd, and is 10d Per
141 b.

Hay, 80s to 85s ; wheat straw' 28s to 365; oat straw, 28°
to 365; turnips, 14s to 16s per ton.

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYNE—AVG. 1.
At this corn-market Wheat Was in small supply, 21.11 t
prices ranged from 44s to as per 36 stone. There was 11,...°
much passing in spring corn, oats being quoted at 288
32s per 24 stone ; beans, 448 to 52s per qr.; barley,
—s per qr.

LIVERPOOL—Auu. 2.
We had a very good attendance of dealers at our corn
exchange this morning, and the demand for both wheat and
flour was quite in retail, with a reduction of ld per cent
al
fromlast market day. Flour had a better inquiry, and
more money waslbtained for low-priced qualities. Beans
rather easier. Oats and oatmeal are difficult to move'
Peas and barley each neglected. Indian corn a dull sale,
at previous prices.

LEEDS—AUG. 2.
Yesterday we had unsettled weather ; it is now fine again'
The show of fine fresh wheat is limited, and prices for such
are well maintained, but the trade is slow for other quail'
ties, with no alteration in value. Barley nominal. Beans
make late quotations. Oats and other articles as before.
Averages for the week :
Wheat '3776 qrs., at 44s 10Id
8ar1ey......... 66 „ 2Bs 9d
Peas .... 10 s„ 43s Od
Beansats 5O ~. 46s Od
O
Rye
. »-5 Od
,+ —s Od
Arrivals this week :

Wheat.___
Bkrley
Oats
Rapeseed
Beans
Peas ....
Linseed

1,423 qrs.
1,057
. ......
24

NORWICH CATTLE—JULY 30.
A very small show of store beasts to .day, comprising Scots.,
shorthorns, and Irish. Sales again restricted, and we had
a poor attendance. Scots, 4s to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6d to
4s 6d ; Irish, 38 to 3s 6d. Fat beasts, 7s 6d to 8s Od Per
stone.

Sheep—The pens were well filled. —Fat sheep, 7s 6d to
8s 6d per stone, and all sold.
Pigs—A good supply. Store pigs I6s to 20s; fat perk).
5s Gd to 6s Gd per stone.