The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-14 00:00:00

WeLsby and Mr. T. Jones appeared t) n behalf of
the defendants. - •
Mr. Evans, on behalf of the defendant (having ad-
mitted that the plaintiff was heir- at-law), stated the
case to the jury. Tha testat;r, WilliarnW bar ton Sut-
ton, was born in 1811, and died in 1849, and, by a will
made in 1845, devised the `:hole of his property to
Mr. Edward Davenport, thereby cutting off the
heir-at-law, who at the time of Sutton's death was
an infant. In his childhood the testator appears to
have been a dull, stupid boy, and at school was
looked upon as a dunce. His mother dying when
he was very young, and his father marrying again,
Mr. Edward Davenport, then a boy and nephew to
the second Mrs. Sutton, was sent for to Spurstowe,
and was brought up in the same house with young.
Sutton. The two boys went to school together,
played, fished, shot, and slept together ; a degree
of friendship thus rising up between them which
continued until the death of Sutton. In 18— Sut.
ton's grandfather died, and left him a little pro-
peity, when he became dissatisfies 1, and left his
father's house. He then went to lodge with an
aunt name 1 Reed, and afterwards with another of
the name of Cope. While with them he fell into.
drunken habits, and the tricks played upon him
while in his drunken bouts, and eccentricities com-
mitted by him, together with his dirty habits, were
urged as strong proofs of his imbecility. In 18—
his fatty died, when he came into possession of
another small estate. Mr. Edward Davenport sue-
' ceeded to Spurstowe, and in 18— Sutton sent se-
veral messengers requesting Mr. Davenport to allow
him to return and live with him: Mr. Davenport
consented ; 'Sutton returned, and he then seems to
have struggled against his propensity for drink,
and to have become very much improved. In the
year 1843, and in consequence of it having been
rumoured that he had male a will in favour
of and innkeeper, he was taken by two
of his cousins named Young and Bowcliffe
to a solicitor at Tarporley, and he then made
a will in favour of his cousins, dividing the
whole of his property amongst them, thus setting
aside the claims of the heir-at-law. This will ap-
pears to have given Sutton much uneasiness, and in
1844 he went to Whitchnrch, and made another
will in favour of Mr. Edward •DavenpOrt. A great
number of witnesses testified to Sutton having said
at vari..us times that Mr. Edward Davenport wa.
the only fiend he had in the world, and that when
he died he would leave him the whole of his pro-
perty. In the latter part of 1811, while in one of
his drunken bouts, he made another will in favour
of Cor well, an innkeeper, which has since been de-
stroyed ; and within a month he again want to
Whitehurch, and made another in favour of Mr.
Edward Davenport.
The case opened on the afternoon of Wednesday,
the sth, and the examination of witnesses (of whom
there were 52) for the defendant concluded on Fri-
day evening. The examination of witnesses (of
whom th re were 51) for the plaintiff commenced
Jon Saturday morning, and concluded on Tuesday
evening last. On Vdne,day, the 12th inst., Mr.
Grove addressed the jury for the plaintiff in a
speech of two hours and a half duration, and was
followed by Mr. Evans for the defendant in a
speech of an hour and a half. His lordship took
six hours in summing up ; the jury then retired,
and after a consultation which lasted forty minutes,
returned into unlit and gave a verdict for the de-
fendant, thereby establishing the will.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Aug. 13.
(Civil Court—Before Mr. Barn Martin.)
HADDOCK AND ANOTHER V. LEWIS AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, Mr. Dowdeswell, Mr.
Cook Evans, and Mr. H. James appeared for the
plaintiffs ; and Mr. Whatley, Q C., Mr. Skinner,
Q.C., Mr. W. H. Cooke, and Mr. Powell for the
defendants.
Th7s was an action of ejectment brought to try
the validity of a will made on the 14th of April,
1855, by Mrs. Anne Higgins, an old lady who died
at a place called " Shepherds," about four miles
from Newnham, on the 13th of May, 1855 at the
advanced age of 80. Considerable interest at-
tached to the inquiry, arising from the circum-
stance that the will in question was made by Mr.
Smith, the solicitor of Newnham, and that one
moiety of the property, after paying certain lega-
cies, was left to a Mrs. Elliott, an old lady of 66,
who was Mr. Smith's mother-in-law. The other
moiety was left to Sarah Lewis, who was the testa-
tor's first cousin. The plaintiff claimed as heir-at-
law, and the defendants as devisees.
When the case was called on,
Mr. Whateley, who appeared for the defendants,
the devisees, said he admitted the plaintiff was
heir-at-law, and claimed the light to begin, by
proving the execution of the will.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott said he could not resist that
application.
Mr. Whateley then stated the facts of the case
to the jury, and called several witnesses to prove
the due execution of the will, which was dated the
14th of April, 1855, and was proved in Doctors'-
commons on the 16th of June following. The tes-
tatrix devised all the estates vested in her upon
trust or by way of mortgage to John Taylor, of
Griershill, in the parish of Lydney, farmer, and
appointed him executor. She gave 2001. to Mary
Lewis, then staying with her ; 501. to Mary Kear,
then living with her ; 1001. to Alfred Meredith,
then living with her. To Henry Awre, innkeeper,
she gave 5001., being the amount of mortgage money
due to her upon his farm. As to the residue of her
property, real and personal, she devised and' be-
queathed the same to the said Sarah Lewis and
Margaret Jane Elliott, of Newnham, widow, as
tenants in common, subject to the payment of her
debts and personal and testamentary expenses.
The will purported to be signed by the testatrix,
" Anne Higgins," on the 14th of April, 1855, and
was witnessed by " Edward Robinson, Awre-Mill,"
and " George Parsons."
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, in summing up the evi-
dence for the plaintiffs, said, one question for the
jury would be whether the deceased had signed the
will, as suggested, 9n the 14th of April ; or, whe-
ther it had not been tinned at a much later period
of the month. A more serious question would be
whether she ever signed any will at all. • Accord-
ing to Mrs. Kear's evidence the deceased denied
ever having signed any will, and it was more pro-
bable, from the evidence, that she did not under-
stand what she was signing, or she might have sup-
posed that she was signing some authority to Mr.
Smith to protect her property from the man White,
who had made a claim to it. The question was
whether the deceased signed that paper, intending
it to be her last will and te,tament. Look at the
persons who had been excluded. Consider that
one-half of the property was given to Mrs. Elliott,
the mother-in-law of Mr. Smith, the attorney who
made the will. Why was not Mrs. E,lio.t called ?
Why was not Mr. Taylor, the executor, called ?
Why was not Mr. Harrison, the su-geon, examing
ed 9 Mr. Harrison might have proved Mrs. Hig-
gins's competency, and Mrs. Elliott, who had got
half the property, might have proved whether or
not she had seen Mrs. Higgins more than once in
her life. The learned sergeant said the question to
be tried was one of great public importance, and he
confidently left the case in the hands of the jury.
Mr. Whateley, in reply, said Mr. Smith was
charged with a gross forgery, conspiracy, and sub-
ordination of perjury. But could the jury believe
that all the parties who had been called by the de-
fendants were parties to such a conspiracy ? All
that could be said of Mr. Smith was, that be was a
gentleman who had carried on business at Newn-
ham for many years without a slur upon his char
acter. The only charge against him was that Mrs.
Higgins had been pleased to leave a large portion
of her property to his mother-in-law. Suppose the
case had been the other way, and Mrs. Higgins had
made her will in favour 'of the disappointed lega-
tees who bad been called by the plaintiffs. Mr.
Smith's evidence was confirmed by the en trieswhich
he had made in his book, and by the entries made
in the innkeeper's book. The learned counsel then
proceeded to comment generally upon the facts of
the case, and said that if this had been a fraudulent
will the probability was that Mr. Smith would
have been ready to give the disappointed parties
some small sums to buy them off. But nothing of
the kind was done, though Mrs. Kear wanted Mrs.
Elliott and Mrs. Lewis each to give her 281. The
learned counsel admitted that some suspicions had
been thrown out on the defendant's case by the
evidence which had been given on the part of the
plaintiffs ; but the evidence was chiefly of conversa-
tions which might be misunderstood ; and hedc''llts
and -
eluded by declaring that the case of the defendants
was clearly proved by direct
evidence. unimpeachablean
Mr. Baron MARTIN summed up the evidence, and
said, the question was, whether the will of the 14th
of April was made by a tpersonhw ofill was her will, and
sound and dispo-
sing mind, and whether !)
not that of a person having influence over her ?
The will must be the real will of the maker, and
the question was whether this will was the will of
Mrs. Higgins, and whether she was of a sound and
disposing mind ? His lordship, said he should be
sorry if it should be thought, from any observations
he might make, that it was right that a will should
be made as this was, for that would put wills in