The Sun. — 1858-07-23 (London, England)

NASSAU V. BRANDRETII AND ANOTHER.  TYs was an action of ejectment to recover possession of a valuatle estate at St. Osytk, iu tits county.  Mr-. Hawkins appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James, Q C., Mr. Lush, Q C., Mr. J. Brown, and Mr. Lloyd, were counsel for the def‘ndants.  Mr. Hawkins briefly stated the plaintiff's case. He said that the plaintiff, John Augustus Nassau, claimed to be the heir-at-law cf the Earl of Rech- • ford, under a will made by that nobleman in the yea' 1778. By that will the E arl left the whole of his estates to Frederick Wm. Nassau, his natural son by a lady described by rho name of , Labbee, otherwise Johnson, and to his male issue. The estates descended, in due course, to William Freclerielc NAM tu, who died in 1857, and the present Claimant was the brother of that gentleman, and by reason of that relationship ho claimed to ho entitled to the estates, which weio at preant. in the possession of his nieces and their husbands, who were the defendants in the present action. Tho will was put in and read, r:nd Mr. Hawkins said that this was the case on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. James then addressed the jury for the defendants. He said he was astonished that such a claim should ever have been brought into a court of justice, and when the jury had heard ihe real facts he was sure they would be of opinion that there Nits no more pretence for disturbing these ladies in the possession •of their property than there would be for any one coming forward to disturb them in the possession of their own property. The defendants were moat respectable ladies ; they were the daughters of the elder brother of the person who now claimed the prop( r y, and the latter had no doubt been deprived by his brother of the enjoyment of any pnr'ion of tie es acc.mut of bis lo proil,grete habits. The learned counsel then proceeded to state that Vie brother of the plaintiff was baptised in -ere name of William Frederick Nassau, but during a considerable period of his life he passed by the name of Frederick only, and in the month of M 'y, 1820, upon the occasion of the legal proceeding being adopted, known as "suffering a recovery," the effect of which was to vest a life interest in the estates of his father, upon whose death they would revert to him, he was described as Frederick William, and subsequently, on account of a doubt being entertained whether he was not misdescribed, a second proceeding of the same kind was taken, in which ho was described by his baptismal name of William Frederick, but there never was the slightest doubt of his identity or of his being the eldest son, and he was a parry with his father to effecting mortgages upon the property in that capacity. The defendants took possession of the estates under a will made by this gentleman in the year 1852, and altheugh he believed it had been asserted on the part of the plaintiff that he was not in a competent state of mind to make a will, he believed there was not the slightest foundation for such a sugg stion. The mother of the testator died in November, 1857, and his wife, to whom he was devotedly attached, died about the same time, and these two events occurring so near to etch other caused him no doubt great distrees of mind, and under the influence of the melancholy feeling 3 that were thus created he did undoubtedly make an attempt upon his life, and died from the injuries he inflicted upon himself, but whatever might have been his cenlition at this time, the will had been made many years before, and at that time there was not the slightest pretence for saying that he was not perfectly competent to execute such an instrument. The various deeds referred to by the learned counsel were then put in and read. t Eton with Mr. Ambrose, a solicitor. at Braintree, deposed that he was intimately acquainted with the testator, and his father also, and he was a the former. Up to the year 1824, William Roderick Nassau always used the name of Frederick only, and witness always called him Frederick. Witness acted as his solicitor down to the time of his death, in November, 1857, and he prepared the will in question, at his request in 1852. ' Cross-examined—Witness lived about 14 miles from Mr. Nassau s residence, but he saw him very . frequently. He had some peculiar habits, but he did not consider that he was more eccentric than many other people were. He had never heard that he bad attempted several times to commit suicide. He only heard of his doing so on one occasion, in November last year, and he died a week afterwards of the injuries he then inflicted upon himself. He used to drive four-in-hand, and one of his peculiarities was that of having a different coloured harness to each horse, one buff, one black, and one white, and the other the ordinary coloured harness. He bad never hoard that he had used a silver bit for one horse, and a gold one for anothet. He had also never heard that he was addicted to drinking. He had an impediment in his speech, which prevented him from mixing much in society. Mr. James said this was the case on the part of • the defendants. Mr. Hawking admitted that he could not answer , the evidence that had been adduced, but he, at the same time observed that they were not aware that same of the deeds that had been put in on behalf of the defendants were in existence until that . day. ▪ Mr. James said he was instructed that all the . deeds had been shown to the solicitor for the plaintiff.  Baron Bramwell observed that the defendants had distinctly made out their title, and the plaintiff was then uonsuited.