Widnes Examiner. — 1906-07-21 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

THE WILL CONTESTED BY HIS MOTHER.  [SPECIA.L REPORT.]  In the Probate Division, on Tuesday, the President (Sir Gorrell Barnes) and a special jury commenced the hearing of the case of Turnock v. Higginbottom. The plaintiff was Miss Henrietta Tunstall Turnock, of Wttitefield-road, Stockton Heath, and she sought probate of a will dated Bth November, 1905, made by Mr. Charles Higginbottom for many years secretary to Arthur Waring and Company, of Warrington. The testator committed suicide a few days after proposing marriage to Miss Turnock. The will in dispute bequeathscl the whole of his property, valued at about £2,500 to her. The defendant was Mrs. Sarah Higginbottom, the mother of the testator, who opposed the grant on the ground that her son was not of sound mind at the time the document was executed, and that he did not know and approve of its contents. She set up a prior will dated the 21st July, 1905, under which she was to have an allowance of .£1 a week.  Mr. Barnard, IC.C., and Sir. Pritchard appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Norman Craig represented the defendant. Mr. Barnard, K.C., in opening said that the testator was a man about 55 years of age at the date of his death on the 11th November 1905, three days after the execution of the witl now in dispute. The testator entered the firm of Messrs. Arthur Waring and Co., of Warrington in 1871 as a junior clerk and from that date down to the time of his death he remained in the firm's service. He had raised himself from junior clerk to secretary to the company. In 1882 he married lady who unfortunately died in 1903. She went to Harrogate with her husband and died suddenly in the street. After the death of his wife, testator's mother came to stay at his house and she remained with him down to the time of his death. The plaintiff in this action, Miss Turnock, was a lady about 30 years of age who had been a friend of the testator and his late wife some seven years and in 1905 testator paid her a great deal of attention and on November Ist of that year he proposed marriage to her. The lady required some few days to consider the matter and on the 3rd November she accepted the offer. On the 4th November Miss Turnock took the testator to her mother's house in Whitefield-road, Stockton Heath and introduced him to her family. On the sth November testator took plaintiff and introduced her to his mother as her future daughter-in-law and on the oth he handed plaintiff an envelope and asked her to read it. They were out walking at:the time and Miss Turnock was not to read the document until she got home. He went home with her and she then opened the envelope and read the document prepared by the testator in which he left all his property to her. After she had read it the testator asked Mrs. Wilson, who had employed plaintiff as companion, to witness it and Mrs. Wilson witnessed it. That, however, was not the will in question. There was an arrangement between the testator and the plaintiff that she should go to his house on the 9th November. She went there and saw Mr. Jenkins a solicitor who had come to see the testator. Mr. Jenkins had known the testator for some 30 years and whenever there was any legal business to be done Mr. Jenkins had always acted for the,testator. Mr. Jenkins had prepared two wills before the one now in question. Mr. Higginbottom introduced Miss Turnock to Mr. Jenkins and then produced the paper and asked Mr. Jenkins whether it was a good will. Mr. Jenkins told him it was not. The testator then requested Mr. Jenkins to draw up a proper one. It was accordingly arranged that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Higginbottom should meet next day for the purpose of making a new will. On the Bth, accordingly Mr. Jenkin's drew up a new will by which the testator left his property to Miss Turnock, Mr. Jenkins pointed out to the testator that it was rather severe not leaving the property to his mother who under the early will was to receive £1 per week for life. The testator then expressed the wish to make some provision for his mother and an agreement was drawn up to that effect which was subsequently signed by Miss Turnock. The will having been drawn up it was signed in the presence of Mr. Jenkins and his clerk who were the attesting witnesses. The same day the plaintiff met testator in Warrington and on the way home from Stockton Heath be told her that he had made his will and that ha had made it in her favour. On the 9th the testator came to see the plaintiff and brought her an 'engagement ring. On the 10th they met again and discussed the wedding which they proposed should take place shortly. They parted on perfectly affectionate terms and an appointment was made for the next day. On the 11th the plaintiff went to meet the testator but he did not turn up and she never saw him alive again. It appeared that he went to his office at the usual time. He was perfectly capable and spoke to people in his office about his engagement. He afterwards went home and seemed to have gone into an outhouse and committed suicide. Miss Turnock was called and gave evidence in support of her' case. She said she lived at Whitefield-road, Stockton Heath, and was 32 years of age. She described Iher acquaintance with the testator and said that during the whole of the time she had known him he had always seemed cheerful and had shown no signs of depression. She first heard of his death on a Sunday evening when she was handed a letter in his handwriting. It was in these terms  " My dear darling Hettie,—May you and God forgive me for the rash act. I cannot bear it longer and in this state of health it is simply dreadful. Take full advantage of my last will and don't let my brother have a single penny. I give all to you for your love and kindness to MO.—