Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1922-01-28
Famous Trials
TRIAL OF THELLUSSON WILL
CASE

No will case during the last century
created as much excitement as did that
Of the disposition of his property by
Peter TheIlusson, London merchant.
This case was carried along in London
courts for two generations. At the pre-
sent time the fortune of the merchant
would be considered very inconsidera-
! BILE, but the disposition of an estate,
in 1859, of $4,000, 900 was something
very unusual in England.
Ti1ellusson had three sons all of
whom were married. 1t was his de-
sire in life that they should found
their own fortune as he had done. He
| took the very best legal advice when
The decided to make his will. He left
| his sons a few trifling legacies and
| the remainder he placed in the hands
| of trustees. 1t was to accumulate I'M
| til every man. woman and child of
| his offspring should also be defunct.
No one of the children or grandchil-
dren ever should be. the richer for
Peters wealth.
| When the will was opened at the
death of the father, all the relatives
were sadly disappointed. They were
! destined to live the life Of Tantalus
| and to see this great pagoda-tree-
growing up before them, yet never to
pluck one unit of its fruit. The terms
of the will enjoined that when the last
survivor Of all the nine descendants
should yield up his breath, then the
charm was to end. Then the great
mountain of accumulated wealth was
to be divided into three portions, and
one third was to be given to each of
the oldest male lineal descendant" of
the tfEee sons.
| He ended his Will by saying that he
he at oil a-
it. Of course, the first thing that fol-
lowed was a ehanceFy suit of the fat
test bulk. The common sense view
would have been to set aside the will
| as the product of diseased mind. But
Lords Loughborough, A1vaney and Ell
don were led by their love of art to
admire the skill of the maker of the
will
The litigation was first carried tc
the House of Lords, where it was con-
firn1ed. Then the Legislature took il
up and decided that the devising pro.
perty for the purpose Of accumulation
should be restrained in general to q
years after the death of the testator
Then the English Courts of ChancerJ
, took the case in hand and for so years
; even after all the children and grand
, | children were dead, they continued tt
, haggle over the will and draw from
t the accumulated sum to pay them 70
: their time.
The last survivor of the nine live
, affected by the will died in February
: 1855. The arrangements were made t.
: carry cut the final part Of the will
0 its division into three parts. Anoth
9 er stumbling block was then in tn
Y | way, for there were two who wer
3 oldest in the point Of lineage and, tw
A who were oldest In point of persona
: age.
e Old Peters object was to make tn
e heap very large at its division, bu
: instead the Court of Chaneery had S
y clipped and pellarded the rich mer
7 eant's oak that when it came to tn
final division it was a very little Iarg
:, or than originally. In fact, the purse
i proud old man had disinherited hi
= own children only to fatten a genera
n ton of lawyers, ana instead of HI
II name being associated with the foun
e dation of a house of fabulous Wealtl
It was only knewn in connection with a
l. ebeEtiye scheme of vulgar vanity.
l. ! In consequence of the failure
f. male HneaI descendants on the part
n one of the family when the partitio
is arrived the trust property became
D. visible into two lots only. In the su
IN l S1 LAC AiOit al IlttIuSoOft V
a. Lord Rendelsham and ethers,' Il
.g question was who was the eldest ma
re ltneal descendant of Peter Isaac.
r. The case was first heard before Il
,a Master of the Rolls, who decided
ii | favor of Lord Rendelshan. Then
Id was appealed before the House
- Lords happily for the itigants ii
re | court of supreme and final jurisdi
ton. The learned Lords delivered the
several opinions. On the 9Th day
- June, 1895, just 81 years after the cr1
lei and insane old man had bequeath'
/ his legacy of dispute and ltigati;
. to his children and his children's Chi
dren, the House of Lords put an 81
er to his power of inflieting further mi
n chief by proneuHeing their final jud
ut ment. Finally the decree of the low
le- court was sustained and Lord Rende
'r- sham YVES given preference over He
Arthur Thellussen as TO the right
to person 10 q share Of the merchant
ne fortune.