The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-12-30
Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dol
HarS n Ycar---A Great Will Case I'm
Dublin---Estates Larger than tl,osc OF
TichbOrne Involved.

and they formed the subject of tic re-
cent trial. TO get ut the grounds Of action
we must go back to the year 1888, when
the Marquis, when Lord Yarmouth, made
il will deSising his Irish estates to
trustees for 4 term Of years. subject to re-
Inainder to Lord Henry Seymour Qiis bro
thcr), his SONS and daughters, with ultimate
remainder to Sir George Hamilton Seymour.
Lord Henry Seymour died unmarried in
1859, and the deyiscc IN 1870, Sir George
Hamilton Seymour then appearing as next
deviscc under the Will We now approach
the disturbing element in the case. The
Marquis'S father died in 1912, and in June,
1850, the Marquis executed series Of codi-
ellis, all written on small slips Of paper, and
one Of which has led to the suit Of Wallace
Is. Seymour. The first Of these codicils bears
date Of June l, in the aboyc-naned year, and
by it the Marquis gave to Madame Mauprat,
OF Hai-Moon street, Piccadilly, sum of
money and his house in the Rue Lafitte, Paris,
for her life. By another, executed on the
same day, a sum Of 900 was devised, the
interest of which was to be for the benefit of
a young lady at that time residing at Marli,
in France. a week later the Marquis drew
up another codicil in these terms:
II hereby revoke the bequeSt contained in
my will OF the residue of all my real and
personal estates to Lord Henry Seymour,
and to reward rs much as | can Richard
Wallace for his care and attention to my dear
mother, and his attention to myself in q long
and painful illness. | give such residue to
said Richard Wallace. now living ut the
Hotel dc France, Boulogne."
The whole trial turned upnn these words,
and how precious they are will be under.
stood when we state that upon the precise
Interpretation depends the ultimate destina-
ton Of estates worth from $4,000 10 ESQ.,
900 year. Sir George Hamilton Seymour
right 10 everything under the original will
could not be disputed. The real question is,
To what extent must the codicil be taken as a
reversal of the terms Of that instrument
Did the Marquis, when he filed up this
small slip Of paper, mean to place Sir
Richard Wallace in exactly the same posi-
ton as th,t occupied by the defendant in
the will. or did he merely intend TO
transfer to him thc personal property
therein referred to? The NIarquis's re-
gard for the plaintiff is, it may be
remarked, quite Ineligible OH the generally
understood ground hat, Notwithstanding the
difference in their names, q blood relationship
of tue closest kind subsistcd between them.
But al that the lawyers had to take into ac-
count was the strict Interpretation Of the
single sentence we have quoted above. a
layman who attempted to solve the mystery
would he almost certain to go wrong. He
would probably begin by taking the language
in its most literal sense, utterly needless o!
the legal pitfalls surrounding him. He might
suppose that rs "rcal" aud "prrsonal
estates are both mentioned in the same ser-
tcnce, the testator had both descriptions of
the property in his mind at the time he wrote
the words. OF course this might have been
so, and one Of the parties in the recent suit
says it WAS so, but judges are justified in
looking ut such question from every
side. Chief Justice Monahan confessed that
the case had puzzled him; indeed, for
long time he entertained strong
opinion that the testator meant the real
and personal estate to go together. Even
now Ire has come to decision rather upon
the Judgment the court ought to pronounce
than upon any marked change of mind as to
what the tcstator may really have intended.
Legal authorities are agreed that where a
codicu revokcs the bequest in IL will it should
do so in "a full, ample. and Ilnmistakable
manner" Now, whatever view may be
taken of the testator's intentions, it will not
be contended that the revocation in the codi-
ell is expressed in language rs full and sim
pie rs it might have been. The Court also
laid stress on the fact that the codici in which
one Of the ladies was interested was "evi-
IDENTITY prepared by professional man" !"
whereas the one in dispute was merely the
work of the Marquis. Was it not probable,
asked the Chief Justice, that if the Marquis
really meant to dispose of those enormously
large estates he would have ayailed himself
of professional assistance, especially when at
the same period he was having recourse to it
in smaller affairs?
This argument is not absolutely conclusive
It might be accepted with confidence i'll the
case of the majority of mankind; but the Mar
uuis was, il not eccentric, at all events very
unlike the mass of his fellow mortalS. When
he executed this particular codicil lie may
have had special reasons for not Informing
his professional adviser Of the fact, though, II
so, it is Il pity he did not take the trouble TO
express his intentions ut greater length. The
Chief Justice says this word "rcal III the
codcil-thc one word on which alone Sir
Richard Wallace's claim rests-kept him ut bay
for considerable time, but at last he got
clear Of the difficulty by this line OF reason
ing:
either forgot the exact clause or bearing OF
Ills TtSlutlalt y UtNtiCSe III lho "hAoA NAAI
of all his personal property, or-what was
not at all improbable-if he hadit before INN,
not being lawyer, he did not perfectly know
what the construction of it was"
Mr.. Justice keogh observed that codicil,
from its very nature, should be taken as part
of a will. and must be read as part OF 1t, ana
doing so in this case, he WAS OF opinion tilat
the codicil did not carry the intention OF the
testator one particle beyond the residuary
bequests, and had no application whatever
beyond them. The unanimity Of the Judges,
four in number, is significant, if not decisive,
as to the legal bearings of the case, but II Is
not surprising to hear it stated that the PLAIN
tiff intends to appeal against their decision;
Sir Richard Wallace considers himself bound
TO do what he can to carry out what he De-
licyes to be 'sthc intentions" OF the Late Mar
Uuis. His motives are not likely to be mis-
He has proved in thousand
ways that great wealth in his hands Would
not be abused. 1t is satisfactory TO know
that, whatever may be the issue OF the present.
suit. il will not have ruin rs one OF Its posi-
ble consequences. Sir Richard received
.e50O. 900 under the will Of the late Marquis,
so that at the worst the loss of the estates In
Down and Antrim will not beggar him; II
Is as we'll to place this contingency rlght In
the foreground, because in actions at law
sympathies, however creditabie to those en-
tertaining them, are very properly treated Us
not of the slightest consequence.
uou "a ,,rayont vo,Ir yyife,s scOlding YOU