The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-13 00:00:00

GRATIS.]

this gentleman first conceived an attachment for her. There
were circumstances connected with the Eastwood family
which made Mr. Heatley averse to the' addresses of Mr.
Eastwood being paid to his niece, and he showed coldness,
but did not attempt to controul the affections of the young
lady. Miss Taylor thought fit to judge for herself, and she
accordingly married Mr. Eastwood. Alicia Taylor, or Mrs.
Middleton, countenanced her sister in forming this alliance
—it being no uncommon thing for one niece to support the
other in opposing what they considered the tyranny of an old
uncle. The consequence was something like a quarrel, and
Mr. Heatley declared that if his niece did marry Mr. East.
wood, they should not be married from his house. Mr. Sher-
burne, as a friend of the family, was appealed to, and his good
offices requested to bring about a change of mind in the tes-
tator, and induce him to consent to the marriage. Mr.
Heatley kept his ground, and Mr. Sherburne offered the
young ladles an asylum in his house. The three went to the
Willows, and afterwards to Lytham, and there Catharine
Taylor was married to Mr. Eastwood. There had been from
first to last an endeavour on the part of Mr. Eastwood to
obtain and to hold every farthing of money that he could get
into his grasp. This was made apparent in a letter dated
May 1, 1818, addressed by Mr. Eastwood to Mr. Sherburne,
in which the writer intimated that he must have the whole of
Miss Taylor's property, real and personal, and that he would
settle on her £lO,OOO. After his death, the property was to
be divided amongst his children as he thought fit. The mar-
riage was solemnized soon after. and though Mr. Heatley
would not allow it to take place from his house, he, as soon
as it was over, was perfectly desirous to be on friendly terms
with his niece and her husband, and even invited them
both to come to luncheon at his house, as they returned
from church. And although through life he exhibited
great firmness of purpose, tells them that as to the dis-
posal of his property he would exercise his judgment, yet he
ever manifested to them every kindly feeling. In the fol-
lowing year Mr. Heatley went to Rome, and, as pretty good
evidence of his capacity for managing his property, he (the
learned counsel) should lay before the jury a series of letters
which the testator had addressed from that city to his land-
agent, Mr. Teeby. These letters were then read by Mr.
Cresswell, who afterwards remarked, that he was sure the
jury would be of opinion that in 1819, when the testator was
in Rome, he was as competent to dispose of his property as
any gentlemen in England. Alicia Taylor was subsequently
married to Mr. Middelton. The third daughter, Henrietta,
was married to Mr. Deese. an Irish gentleman. Each
of the young ladies had a fortune of about ten thou-
sand pounds. Mr. Sherburne, in 1822, left England,
by order of his superior, to take charge of St.
Andrew:;, in Valladolid, in lieu of his deceased brother. He
remained in Spain till the autumn of 1825, when he returned
to England. In that interval Mr. Heatley had made his
first will, of which they had obtained possession ; and it would
be found that at that period, when the testator could be no
otherwise than in the full vigour of his intellect, when there
was no trace of suspicion that he was not a free agent, when
the nieces were in England, and Mr. Sherburne was at Val-
ladolid, he made a will much more favourable to the defen-
dant than that which the plaintiffs that day sought to im-
peach. The whole of this first will was in the handwriting
of Mr. Ileatley, though it was very likely, from the language
of it, that sonic lawyer was prepared to give him a sketch
of it. It would be found, however, that Mr. Heatley
was rather proud of his legal knowledge. Mr. Cress-
well read the will. It was dated the 21st day of April, 1824,
and gave to the testator's niece, Alicia Middleton, £6OOO ;
to his niece Catherine Ann Eastwood, 1:6000 ; and bequeathed
all the remainder of his real and personal estate to his faith-
ful friend the Rev. Thomas‘Sherburne, alias Irving, late of
the Willows, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns,
its his own proper estate for ever. Mr. Sherburne was con-
stituted sole executor of the will, which was witnessed by
three persons, one of whom was Mr. Teeby, the land-agent
of Mr. Ileatley. An incident at this time occurred which
might account for the testator then making his will, and for
his thinking that £6,000 was a sum large enough for his
nieces. Mrs. Dease had shortly before died in France. It
would appear, from the correspondence that he should read
respecting her affairs, that Mrs. Dease had had left under
her control the larger share of her property. By the mar-
riage settlement her husband was entitled, in the event of
there being no issue, to £l5OO only ; and it would be found
that one of the gentlemen, Mr. Middleton, who now talked
of practice in the making of a will, suggested to this
dying lady the propriety of leaving the property under
her control, not to her husband, but to her two sisters
—that she acted on his recommendation—that he him-
self made the will, and that under this will, just before the,
period at which Mr. Heatley had made his will, Mrs. East-
wood and Mrs. Middleton were entitled to divide all the re-
versionary interest of Mrs. Dease, after her death, with the
exception of £l5OO. This might work in two ways on the
mind of the testator. It might put him in recollection of
the common fate of mortality, and suggest the propriety of
his then making a will, and the fact of his nieces having ob-
tained between them the greater portion of their deceased
sister's fortune, might make him think that lie should be
dealing handsomely by them if he left them £6,000, which,
added to their fortune of £lO,OOO, and a moiety of the pro-
perty of their sister, would make altogether a fortune of
£20,000. In the will of Mrs. Dease, Mr. Heatley was con-
stituted the executor ; but he declined the trust, thinking
that the will was one which was likely to involve him. He
perhaps thought that the circumstance of his nephew having
made the will would lead to litigation, and he desired to
be excused from undertaking the office. Mr. Dease, the
widower, wrote to Heatley, requesting him to act, and
stating that it was by the desire of his late niece that he had
been named executor. Mr. Heatley then consented to act.
Mr. Cresswell then proceeded to trace the personal history
of the testator during this period by his correspondence.
He observed that it had been discovered, in ransacking for
papers for this cause, that the testator carried on a trade in
Manchester goods, which appeared to have been known only
to himself and the person acting as his agent. The letters
read were extremely numerous, and some of them, as Mr.
C. remarked, exhibited a strain of deep piety, though
nothing like an approximation to bigotry, superstition, or
slavish dependence upon priests. They also showed that
Mr. 11. was munificent, though courteous in his charities—
that he was fond of active exercise and field sports, that he
was mixed up in county business, and that he was a shrewd
and far-seeing man, of whose perfect competency to manage
his affairs there had never been the slightest doubt. •
Mr. Baron ROLFE here interrupted Mr. Cresswell, to say
that if the learned gentleman, from physical incapacity,
should not be able to go on with his statement for the whole
day, all other cases must be in readiness to be proceeded with.
Mr. CRESSWELL thanked his lordship, but said that with
ten minutes' rest at one o'clock, he thought he could go on
for the whole day.
Mr. DUNDAS took this opportunity of asking his lordship
whether the special jury case fixed for Monday would come
on at the appointed time.
The Learned JUDGE could not tell. He hoped that on
Saturday his brother Maule would be able to take civil causes,
and a great deal must depend upon circumstances. His
lordship added, that there were 56 cases in one civil list re-
maining for trial.
Mr. CRESSWELL then proceeded with the documentary
part of the case, tracing the history of the testator from the
year 1896 to 1833. Of the immense mass of letters read, it
would require several columns to give even an outline. They
showed that in November, 1826, Mr. Heatley, (who was
an old batchelor, and to restore from the annoyances
and discomforts of keeping up an establishment,) made an
offer to his niece, Mrs. Eastwood, of Brindle Lodge, and the
lands belonging thereto, a property which had cost him
£30,000 or £40,000, on condition that she should reside on
the mansion, and pay to her sister £l5O annually. The
same offer had previously been made to Mrs. Middelton, and
refused; and it was now also refused by Mrs. Eastwood,
who pleaded that her husband's finances were liot in a con-
dition to enable her to live in a style that ought to
belong to such a residence, and to continue the mu-
nificent charities of the testator. Mr. Heatley kindly com-
bated their arguments, and pointed out that she could limit
her benevolences to the extent of her means, but the generous
offer was refused with many thanks. Mrs. Eastwood, how-
ever, proffered to go with her husband and family to Brindle
Lodge, and do all in her power to make her uncle comfort-
able ; " but," said Mr. Cresswell, " if one thing could have
been more uncomfortable than another, to a man like Mr.
Heatley, anxious to rid himself of the cares and annoyances
of a domestic establishment, it must have been to have su-
peradded to his establishment the wife and children of ano-
ther person. He would not take a wife of his own ; how,
then, should he like to take that of another man, to hector
over him in his own house? I speak for myself," said the
learned gentleman warmly ; " I would beg in the streets for
a livinc, rather than do it." A courteous reply was sent by
Mr. if., who was surprised that the offer of a house which had
cost some £20,000, with 120 acres of freehold land, and lease-
hold land besides of the value of £lOO a-year, should not be
thought worthy of acceptance. He bogged that the matter
might be altogether forgotten, and that they should continue
on their former friendly terms. In March, 1827, Mr. Heatley
wrote to Mrs. Eastwood, intimating his intention that he
should continue to reside at the lodge ; but that, as some re-
pairs were needful, and he wished them to be done in his
absence, and, moreover, as he wished to have an excuse
for ridding himself of some of his domestics without injuring
their characters, he should take an out for some time. Mr.
Heatley mentioned that if the season had been more ad-
vanced, be should have gone to Lytham or Blackburn ; but
the -weather would not suit for a visit to a watering place,
and he had therefore fixed upon going to Mr. Sherburne's,
at the Willows. Thither he accordingly—staid some time—
then paid a visit to Lytham, at the direction of his physi-
cian, and returned to Brindle Lodge, after being absent about
four months ; for his next letter to his niece was dated
" Brindle Lodge, August 25." Several letters followed on
the subject of a visit of Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood to the tes-
tator' at his house, which, after having been fixed to take
place shortly, was declined on account of some offence taken
by the niece, who thought that the tone of the invitation was
not sufficiently cordial. The next and most prominent sub..
jest of this voluminous correspondence had reference to the
testator's disposal of his property. It had been ascertained
by Mrs. Eastwood, or suspected by her, that her uncle had
no intention of leaving the whole of his property to his
nieces • and after the question, whether a person would be
justified in disposing of his property otherwise than to his
direct heirs, had formed the subject of conversation at
the table of Mr. Heatley, it formed the subject of a long and
somewhat angry correspondence between the niece and her
uncle. The letter stoutly maintained that he had a right to
dispose of his own property in any way he thought fit, and
declared his determination of doing so ; and the former in-
sisted that the estate was the property of her grandfather,
and ought in justice to descend to the next heirs. To com-
bat this doctrtne, the niece had recourse to argument ;
this was ineffectual ; and she then had recourse to scripture,
pointing to the 27th chap. of the book of Numbers, which,
she said, showed what the will of God with regard to inherit-
ance was. The testator replied to this by urging that the
Mosaic law; and ceremonial had been superseded ; but the
niece still urged her point with great ability and resolution,
and put it to her uncle whether he could conscientiously dis-
pose of his property to strangers, when he had near and dear
relatives, direct heir to the estate. In this emergency, he had
recourse to several divines of the Catholic church, who coin-
cided with him in opinion that a man might justly divert a
portion of his personal property from his lineal descendants.
Mrs. Eastwood contended that she had received an opposite
opinion from eminent divines, and boldly avowed that her
uncle would be committing an act of great injustice by de-
priving her and her children of their " just and natural
right " to inherit what she termed the paternal estate. Ul-
ntiens7t,ealyd,hewrhedentlnri.i,sH:paittril,w,4h fiimmess but great mild-
ness, resorted to threats, and
said that if be C.'.arlied'out his intention he would be placing
his sold injeopardy. The Rev. Mr. Sherburne was written
to by the testator, when the correspondence began to as-
sume a theological shape, and a letter of Mrs. Eastwood's
was enclosed to him, with instructions to answer
it firmly but mildly, and suggesting the topics to the rev.
gentleman. Mr. Cresswell remarked that if it should be
contended that all the letters to the niece were not the

productions of the testator, this to the defendant must be
conceded to be his, and it showed that Mr. H. was a man
capable of coming to a free and independent judgment, and
one who was resolved not be guided by others in his own
affairs. In the course of this correspondence Mr. H. plainly
told his niece that neither she nor her children should in-
herit his property, meaning thereby, as was afterwards ex-
plained, the whole of his property, which was what was
claimed by Mrs. Eastwood. This determination was re-
peated, in cooler moments, on two subsequent occasions.
A partial reconciliation took place between the uncle and
niece towards the close of 1832, the former having requested
that the subject of their long dispute should be altogether
and for ever dropped. On New-year's day, Mr. H. sent
Mrs. E. a New-year's gift, which was gratefully and kindly
acknowledged. In the following June, the testator sent to a
son of Mrs. Eastwood a present of £3O, to pay for his board
at college during the next year. This generosity, instead of
being received in the same spirit as that of the preceding
New Year's Day, called forth from Mrs. Eastwood what ap-
peared to be a very ungracious reply. She said that it was
impossible to regard this as a kindness done to her or hers,
since her uncle had declared that he looked upon her as an
indifferent person, and as one who was eager to obtain pos-
session of his property. The old argument was then renewed,
and Mr. Ileatley replied by stating that he thought the mat-
ter had entirely dropped on both sides, and that the Book of
Numbers was no more to be referred to. He begged that he
might no more be troubled with so unpleasant a topic. Mrs.
Eastwood, however, was not disposed to be compliant. She
wrote to Mr. Heatley that the subject was distressing to
her; but she hoped that he would pause before he did
that which would risk the salvation of his precious soul.
"My temporal interest may suffer," she added, " but
it may be a stepping-stone to that happiness which
we hope to enjoy hereafter." The niece afterwards com-
plained that the estrangement between her and her uncle
had been caused by the interference of a third party (Mr.
Sherburne), hinted that the determination of Mr. Heatley as
to the disposal of his property, was the result of the advice of
that third party, and concluded by saying that a priest never
interfered in family concerns without betraying both parties
for whom he was interested. This accusation was indig-
nantly denied by the testator ; he cautioned his nieee
against giving utterance rashly to calumnious stories ; de-
clared that he had acted under no dictation from any one,
but that his intention, as to the disposal of his property,
was the result of his own unaided and free judgment.
Mr. Cresswell then said, that at this stage of the proceedings,
it was desirable to show the jury what had been done. By
the first will, as had been seen, the testator left to each of
his nieces £6OOO, and nothing more, and that will had been
made in the absence of Mr. Sherburne, the gentleman who
was charged with having, by secret influence and malprac-
tices, induced Mr. Heasley to make a will in his favour, and
to the disadvantage of the nieces. The will of 1829, made
long after Mr. Shrburne had returned to England, and when
the Eastwoods were in France, gave and devised Brindle
Lodge, the furniture, gardens, farm-house, and lands ad-
joining, together with various other farms, houses, and
cottages, to his two nieces, to have between them
during their joint lives, and the survivor to have the
entirety during her life, and after them to descend
to their lawful children, their heirs and assigns for ever.
To each of his god-children, and each of the chidren of
his nieces £lOO was left—to Mr. Teeby £lOO, to another
servant £lOO, and smaller sums to other domestics. The
remainder of his landed property, freehold and leasehold,
together with his debts and securities for money, were left
to his dear friend Mr. Sherburne, his heirs' administrators,
and assigns. Mr. Sherburne was constituted sole executor.
This was increasing the share of the nieces to at least double
what was devised to them by the first will. By a codicil to
this will an increased amount of landed property, worth
from £BOOO to £lO,OOO, was left the nieces, and
by so much was the bequest to Mr. Sherburne de-
creased. This codicil was framed during the period
of estrangement, when the testator was supposed to
be under the influence of him who was called the
grasping priest. Mr. Cresswell said that he would show
on the next day, how, under the same influence, in the second
codicil still further benefactions were made to the two nieces,
and a further provision drawn from that originally left to the
defendant. He should produce a correspondence between
Mr. Sherburne and Mr. Wheatley, showing that the latter
was not a drivelling idiot, a bigot, and a slave to the priest,
but that their intercourse was that of one manly mind with
another ; and that the teststor, seeing that his nieces were
well provided for, had thought that he might very well pro-
vide for an intimate and esteemed friend.
It was now half-past five o'clock, and Sir W. FOLLETT,
seeing that the court was about to adjourn, proposed that
his learned friend should permit Mr. Watson' his junior, to
proceed then with the reading of the other documents, as
the case would, to go on in the present way, last a fortnight.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied, that the course suggested was
unusual, and that he could himself do his own business.

Sir W. FOLLETT said that it might be unusual, but he had
never before heard a case opened at this length.
Mr. CRESSWELL observed that the Attorney-General
opened one in the same way last year.
The learned JUDGE said that the case was so important,
and the learned counsel had been speaking for so many hours,
that he could not press him to proceed.
The court, therefore, adjourned till one o'clock on Friday.

FRIDAY.
This being Good Friday, Mr. Baron ROLFE did not take
his seat until five minutes before one.

THE WILL CAUSE.
After the names of the special jury had been called over,
and had taken their seats,
Mr. CRESSWELL proceeded with his opening speck. He
commenced by briefly recapitulating the facts he had laid be-
fore the jury on the previous day. They would recollect that
he concluded his speech by reading to them the last will, and
a codicil to it made by Mr. Heatley in 1829. In a letter writ-
ten by Mrs. Eastwood, about the period of his executing the
first codicil of the will, she declared before God that she con-
sidered her claim just, and that she should think it right to
enforce it. This Mr. Heatley took to be a threat, that she
would endeavour to set aside his will after death, and, accord-
ingly, he took steps to prevent such an event being success-
ful. He•therefore wrote to Mrs. Eastwood, on the 12th De-
cember, 1838, in reply to an angry letter from her, express-
ing his determination to pursue steadily that course of con-
duct he had marked out for himself. In answer to this, Mrs.
Eastwood wrote a coaxing letter, which called for another

from the testator dated Decernber 29, 1838, in which he as-
serts his determination to dispose of his property as he should
think fit. Mr. Cresswell then read the third codicil to the
will, dated the 3d June, 1826. In this codicil he bequeathes
more property to his nieces, and adds a condition at the end
of it, that unless they confirmed the bequests to Mr. Sher-
burne they were to be deprived of all benefit under the will.
He knew they entertained a wish to set aside the will, should
the property be left to any one but themselves, and therefore
he requires them to grant a conveyance of the property given
to his friend, Mr. Sherburne, under the will, and in order
that they might not do it under the influence of irritated feel-
ings, he very eonsiderately allowed them twelve months to
consider of it. They had lost no time in contesting the va-
lidity of the will ; but had brought that case before the jury,
and he trusted that when the jury had returned their verdict,
those nieces would then he able to confirm the will of the tes-
tator, for he felt convinced that verdict would be against
them. Under the will they would hold freehold property
worth between £7OO and £BOO a-year, at thirty years' pur-
chase, besides Brindle Lodge, whilst Mr. Sherburne had pro-
perty worth about £460 a-year, which, consisting chiefly of
cottages, was not worth more than twenty years' purchase.
That was Mr. Heatley's last will, made after Mr. Sherburne
returned to this country, and it gave the nieces considerably
more property than they would have had under the will made
during the absence of the defendant. Mr. Heatley died in
the year 1840, and during that year, and previously, the East-
wood family were constantly at Brindle Lodge, sometimes
for a week and sometimes for a fortnight together ; none
more competent than they, therefore, to judge of his ability
to make a will, and, had he then been under the control of
others, to rescue him from that thraldom. Mr. Cresswell
then read a complimentary letter from Mr. Heatley to Mr.
Eastwood, dated November 22, 1836.
The Foreman of the Jury inquired if those letters had the
same defect in spelling as had been noticed in the former cor-
respondence.
Mr. CRESSWELL said some of the letters were better in
respect to orthography than others.

Sir W. Fot Lirr..--:There is one particular correspondence
much better spelt than any other.
Mr. CRISSWELL now understood his learned friend's
speech.. It would be said they had been written for him, but
he (Mr. Cresswell) was sure the jury would be of opinion
that the whole of the correspondence was a genuine one, and
that the nieces themselves were treating it as such. He then
read a series of letters from the testator to Mrs. Eastwood in
the most friendly terms, frequently inviting them to visit him,
and from which it appeared that the family had occasionally
visited him, and he them. This correspondence covered a
period from Dec. 1836, to the same month in 1838. The
next were two letters, addressed to Miss C. Eastwood whilst
at a nunnery at Boulogne-sur-Mer. After reading them the
learned counsel proceeded to lay before the jury a series ad-
dressed to the defendant in the cause, commencing in 1833,
and extending to within a month or two of his death. In
these letters the testator appears to have frequently con-
sulted the rev. gentleman as to his domestic circumstances,
that he had in more than one instance written to him for
drafts of answers to letters lie had received. On this Mr.
Cresswell observed that the jury would find he had written
all letters of business himself, but with regard to compli-
mentary he had asked for assistance in inditing. After read-
ing the letters, Mr. Cresswell felt assured that they must re-
move all doubt, had any existed before, as to whether be was
acting and the influence of Mr. Sherburne. From those
letters he was found treating the defendant as one gentleman
would another, and so far from his being frequently at Brin-
dle Lodge, Mr. Heatley complained of his absence on many
occasions. He had next to introduce Mr. Heatley to them
as a man of business. In 1817 he joined a Mr. Heyes in the
Manchester trade, and carried on an extensive traffic for ten
years, until the year 1827. He then left the business entirely
to Mr. Heyes, taking his bond for £22,000, the value of the
stock. Mr. Heyes subsequently removed to London, where
he entered into the stationery business, and joined Mr. Perry,
a gentleman much celebrated as the manufacturer of steel
pens and inkstands. Mr. Heyes would be called before
them, and he would prove that Mr. Heatley was a most ex-
cellent man of business, and quite competent to manage his
affairs. The books of the concern had not been found. When
Mr. Heatley retired they were given up to him, and the pro-
bability was that he had destroyed them. Mr. Cresswell then
read a number of letters to Mr. Heyes, from 1827 to June,
1840, near the period of his death, by which he acknow-
ledged the receipt of various sums of money on account
of the bond, for principal and interest, amounting to upwards
.of £16,000. It appeared also that the various sums on ac-
count of the bond had been regularly endorsed on the back
of that document. Mr. Cresswell then said he should call
before them Mr. Tebay, a land-agent to several gentlemen in
the neighbourhood of Preston. That gentleman had known
him for 35 years, and he would tell them he seldom met with
a gentleman more completely competent to manage his own
affairs. The learned gentleman next produced his books,
from which it appeared that they were kept with great regu-
larity down to the year 1838, when his health began to fail.
He was also regular in auditing his own accounts, and Mr.
Tebay had to produce them for his inspection ; nay; shortly
before his death Mr. Tebay was ordered to prepare his ac-
counts for an audit, the infirm state of his (Heatley's).health
having prevented his doing that for the last year or two ; but
he died before it was completed. After describing the way
in which the will had been executed and attested, as is de-
tailed in the evidence, the learned gentleman concluded by
observing that
j
urhy. he left
He
invitedthe questionte with coOdence in the
hands
utmost
scrutiny and in-
vestigation for the defendant. The property was of very little
importance to him in comparison, with his character. That
character was to bin of the utmost importance, and, there-
fore, 111 was anxious it should be set right with the