560 
“THE, GARDENERS’ CHRONICLE. 
{N° 34. 
<> Sa is Ghcis Aig me aay Ciuc |euotabax eairalees seu gis marion Cae” es 
misconduct of some in thi ransactions. 
They would first consider the paper marked 8. It was attested 
by three witnesses ; their attestation was duly proved, and their 
lordships could not doubt that it was the handwriting of the 
testator. But this paper was inoperative in itself. this paper 
the testator’s property was given tu his nai : ac those exe- 
cutors were not named in it. Their —. not think 
that this was through any mistake. The n was not done 
in a hurry adborne, by why separ was a 
lawyer of experience ; the testato f the nature of 
such instruments, it was read over tol him. twice, he was a oO 
business and experi mee, he had had eXperience in making wills, 
and the nec ce wus, that ust mean, by 
giving P t executors, to to executo: 
a matter e 
“execators hereafter to be ap- 
ecutors if he had n up 
pater aececnl the distinction would have been 
pide Sad by x J sagen d _ mg ong: them if 
ol 
of any after: named executors. 
which would be epee mentioned, and See tas te their ete sampes 74 
hand-w: t a 
have been i usion 
that the testator had ied his executors before ate: 
the pa; B. That bemg their Jordships’ opinion as the 
import and struction of- B, the next question was, 
whether legal was sucha trument at all, which was re- 
ferred to in it, and that led to the pacar nn of the ee 3 
isfied. 
Ang 
Aiderman of the city of London, John Chadborne, Jacob Os- 
borne, and J. S. Surman, all of the ea of ee to be my 
executors, and [ appoint to be m ;cordingly.’” 
Feat Gerel tintin: posportiug. beara ngerenprs signed by 
peachy onsna-tiey ee four gentlemen before alluded 
to as executors. that paper began by referring to the in- 
structions he had given for making the will. It began— 
Whee weer tetas ces, this to be my 
as in my instructions.” A were 
genuine, no reason to doubt that the executors, 
to whom the beq his property, were ibed in 
the paper entitled “ f "and dated the 2d of Decem- 
ber; and natural inference would be, that in naming the 
be np rn enger beg ee en oan Se eee ee to be 
pape! Their lordships 
re ~ Ainge no 
both papers, sidere 
made _— and were entitled to be admitted to proof, If the 
ed in paper B meant the executors already named, 
asied he i 
gave pro- 
to persons as joint sesh and in the latter as tenants in 
objection did not appear 
iy but it was quite |, and of 
every-day > second we to the dis- 
of th property. It was said in he 
would dispose of it per a persons and in such parts as he might 
my ent. But 
there did not cecur anything inconsistent in thi stance. 
this upon the assumption that paper A 
the , and signed by him on the day it bears 
date, the wil up. They were satisfied the paper was 
genuine. Th ‘ved it to be signed by th: tator in his own 
handwriting, the day on which it bore date, the 2d of Decem- 
ber, and that therehad been no addition. The date was obviously 
if, according 
wherever the hi iti © testator was disputed, thi 
of that handwriting was not sufficient. b vip eeeii — 
borative evidence ; was vi 
pe per Bhe meant by the ter: Ss, the executors mentioned 
m paper A? In considering ‘tliat  qawations it was not immaterial 
rs ate ee that Sogou Osborne, and Surman, the parties 
ere al 
€ > tima’ y them. In 
ering evidence to the rec tion, their lordshi 
t shi 
te pass dy the evidence of the loose and general conve: a 
~ ie posers hgae Felian: ad be placed upon th 
bss SS - ‘low tuning exhibited in the character of 
etestater. But it-wasin proof = upon all occasions, wh 
— the: Bees soe Be had alway: ‘S named, sometimes Sir M. 1 
Wood ine so the 
other two, bat 
: ssome ofthe oar gentlemen wlio were named asexecntors 
: Ors, aud never any one cise. Bat the most 
oes ots nt recognitio one Ne by Satton and Ss 
wo = be Leite tg 
to which i 
? what the 
order show 
would b by the coi ave 
4th of Recon Tt a — eared that 
terms with the 
testator that’ unless people were satisfied that their balance: 
would be immediately receivable on his death, in the event of his 
ree the begs ed the bank must diminish, notwithstanding 
the lence e security. aE: the Ist of September, 1834, 
een ¢alled upon the be yrs wishing to 
speak to him about making a will. Sutton did no see the 
id t 
ey conversed for some time ae general topics 
tl ee Tenth Sutton coe ts byte Sov Mar eared fe ~- make 
wi will. The reply short 
utton 
ression upon his mind was too hen erful to be 
markable ae the testator 
e had settled 
understood from the co 
tor had made a will so far oul as to sec 
de’ 
the testator. This materially confirm 
ts. There was then the evidence of ens, upon con- 
siderable stress had laid e and his father had deposits 
eybol ly ae 
pert ad h 
terms of Alderman Wood, of his faithful cevak Osborne, and of 
i aid, he alw 
then was, that they were of opinion that the 
——— was signed by the testator, and on the day it bore 
; that in the paper B the testator referred to those Instruc- 
ra , and to the persons therein named e ade 
dition, the proof of the handwriting was s' 
that paper A was the aah —S ous te testator; and ot in paper B the 
testator refe amed i per A. 
scmnad tiebaeer pot opinion that eines 
ey considered that it w: 
ria 
ly long = careful consideration, how- 
ever, they we pinion that the balance of evidence was in 
favour of.the appellants. Next, as to the codicil. They were of 
opinion that both the body of the instrument. and the signature 
rein the handwriting of the testator. The evidence in the 
affirmative so YY preponderated, as to s 'y them entirely; 
— est to Samuel be sca of 14,000/., and to his family sae ane 
am of 6,000. This would make 20, 0002. and ad 
oad children. or had 
staf 
nm ano 5 letter: These cir pothtat a 
were vaaty caietate be raise pose fen in an ordinary case, but 
the evidence in the ent case tended tothe conclusion that this 
us codicil w 
been 
f the testator at an early h after his death. The explanatio: 
given sufficient ; it was admitted that papers were de- 
troyed, o weg! which, at cea” was probably of a testamentary 
ature. er was a circumstance which tended to weaken 
could tie possibly 
barnt? These Lad ONS 
No one could have suspect! 
could be drawn from that, but that the had produ 
this p puraaet had some knowledge of the transaction, and that 
explained the circumstance of the previous codicil referred to 
it being ced. it then it alle — that this codicil 
ad been cancelled. Now the onus of proving that it had been 
cancelled nly lay upon those who Baines. its admission. It 
peared corner en burnt, and that the paper had 
been tor ro across the signature, but there were no cir- 
cumstances to shi en this had been done; there was nothing 
Itha: e been can- 
celled, because the other codicil to which it d was not 
fe ming ; but it was obvious th: codicil might lave 
been destroyed with other papers, and the present codicil was no! 
found among the testator’s papers, it was in other hands. It was 
im evidence that th mag im: ly dealt with, that 
they through o! » and that there been 
fraud. from the mere fact of the other codicil not be- 
ing could that it 
‘forthcoming, 
‘was the testator’s intention to cancel 
among the 
| even if ithad beenfound 
after his death, it would require further evidence cok cree 
had Ae been Produced, to show that this a hes. been can 
elled maps ster pn the opinion of their 
ug! it 
43 
awe 
8 
n that Court, as 
the Court below, should be paid out of the estate. wa There 
of this judgment is to reverse the decision of Sir Herbert Jenner 
and to give ull possession of this vast property to Sir Mat’ 
and his co-execntors, subject only to the pa 
ich w 
of this Posten here ra, brome Pen a risks. Arka a 
very longing aaa: In summing up, the Lord eo vl Justice 
dressed the Jury, and said that the present action was against th 
defendant for a trespass and assault upon the — init, ‘bat Shere 
had been roof of an assault, and that part of the subject must. 
therefore, be dismissed from their minds, as t bound to 
ve their verdict upon the evidence alone. e learned Judge 
then proceeded to remark upon the circumstances of the case- 
and he said it was for th to decide whether Grantley 
rty in question ; and if the 
title by posses: he trespass mus S proved: 
and the only question would then be the amount ages that 
jhould be awarded to the plaintiff for the suffering and the incon. 
venience that he had undergone. The Jury then retired, and after 
ha’ 
being absent about ey an honr, a returned into Court witha 
verdict for the Leyes! --Damages, 2751. 
Maw Subjoine re the ent —Bone-dust, 21s 6d per qr. of 
8 Bhikele: x ? Hale, rhe ir) ‘le ae gee - do. 
Ces :. 
ae -dust, Plena i; Raga at 
to 4110s per ton; Graves, 5/ to 5! 10s per ton ; HY Gyeeise, ie it, OF Se 
dirty, 22 15s clea an, ae ton; jance’s 's Carbon, s per ah oe 
rqr., Soap-ashes, 10s per ton; Artificial manure, | 5 Ectena’s 
‘atent Disinfected Manure, }as Gd per qr.; Pe payee of £ Soda, soos od to sod 
per xe ; Nitrateof oes or Saltpetre, 26s 0d 
4i 4s per ton; the Ura ef the a 
anees ‘: Chie-fou, or Chin e Man 
288,0d per owt. ; Willey Duss, 
— ‘Samure C Compan: abe nae ton; eo 
sper Cwt Nee ‘3° Journal. 
GAZETTE OF THE WEEK. 
IN: VENTS.—J. Scott, of ‘Bri prog sees Upper Tha 
Gunes: Williamson, ot -stre 
stold 
Southall, jun, faery 
Bai 
» Yeadon, Sontag ge ialing-miller—J. Cru 
—W. Fawe of Manchester, Colne, 
sie R. Dierden, of Sut 
i 
cooper, Bermon 
Cooke, dsey—A. Duncan 
se-yard, City—H. War 
Bardol| 
eg pe en 
ph, Nottingham— 
and Giang 
ees ag 
q T. Fer; 
of Auchter; veg Perihehice, S Mehmed pay oe ry Clagome ge eed 
Frame_or Farie, Farie, ep Sa» of Glasgow bookbinders—A. eer 
Glasgow, hte we bak tley and Co. mnerchants—J. Wilsop, Edin 
burgh, general ‘al merch 
builder, Mancheste: 
q 
» Glasgow, mercha: 
Rosean, » Dominic ica, on the e 18th of June, the lady 
ial Seeretary and aa a the Council, of a 
Cato. ason—On the 
IRTHS.—At of J. Laid- 
¥, -». Colon: daugher—as 
eiis, on the 13th inst, Mrs. G. A. 
han He 
inst., in Park- 
ponds ngs ath 
and 
1 = urray, 
oe daivalig? ae 
Ton nier Ta Sophy, daug! 
Island of St. Croix, Chamberlain t» his ny 
Peter’ "Ss ome igi E. Hyde, of Windsor, to Em: 
Esgq., 0 
DI ED ber sy Tuesday i last, i in the 15th 
Majesty. 
ma, daughter 
ea his age, after a 
J. Merrick, son of Mr. J. pene ee s ita Pryse, 
Buscot Park—On the (2th in Debden- Loughton, Esse: 
by—On the 13th inst., at ‘Conelie qoorns ri "Dorking, B. Bourn ra 
of the Rev, E. Tagart, of Saywnsiler; aged nearly three years—At our) 
masex, on the 13th inst., W. Jones, Esq., surgeon, late of Mount-street, 7 
yenor square—On the 14th inst., at Brighton, Susanna, daughter of the a 
ontgomrey, Esq, ntturd, aged 26—On the 1 inst., at his residence 
at Dulwich, after a short but aoa illness, J. Wills, » Proctor, som ok te 
ee and father of —— ot Meson idlgue Toctors’-cossmons 5 
se, seat y of Bucks, Sir H. H. Hoare, Bart» 
INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL HORTICULTURAL SUBJECTS IN 
No, 33. 
ZEschy na + 537@{ Gue lower ys : 
Agricultural Soe. od England » 5354) Henle: Soc. st eae 
Amer! goes = light eee by Humble-Be injure flowers + a 
Coal-ta: 533 ¢ | Hygrometer, the last - Be 
And A t hardy .  . 887! Kew Botanic Gardens, notes om see 
Bath Hort.Soc.. . < . 530@| Limestone fora Vine border - came 
Bay-tree, resuscitation of ii Liverpool Hort. Soe. ~ = 
leaves - + _» + 531 B}| London Vegetation, cause of ot 
fortia decussata, wer S374 unhealthiness . — - aii 
Bot. Soc. of Edinburgh . . 434¢| Moss, its destruction 
British Assoviation oe ee, © os led 
runsvigia Josephine, to flower 537 4 vate ce Sela, whea apr ‘te 
Budding. pest toy - sae _ c 
Cacti imported forsale 535 ¢ Pd Jal in. fue 
e naga ega asker’ 536 ¢| Oiled Cotton, # protec ction sre 
npani jalis, its treat- ants 
ment 537 @ om tnidacess imported ‘forsale . S€ 
‘arrot-fiy remedy for 537 b es Usher ae net to = — s 5 
ee for plants wt Oo are gre 
erries, to oF yg ee Se 
Cottage Gardens, No. XXX, . 535 Pines, penpaniic 25 eg — Fs r 
uckoos, their food .  , «537.5 | Plants sane differently 708 oo 
Cuttings, where placed when the-us thod « mae 
made +» al & Rabbite, oe . pe, 
De VAgriculen re, et de la Con- Rain, ty fallen pear se 
—— des Keealeurs. en den. . * = * me 
ande et Grande binia Psendo-acacia, itetrest- 
oe ohana: ae « - 360 ment RE abe gee 
vorrand Exeter Flor, Soc. . 530% | Sabarunpu rdener SP ah 
Dorking ers” Hort. Ex- poe r Botanic Garden + oy 
ane a me . ‘. 530 b| Salvia splendens, to fower ac 
Ealin escribed 635 ¢ | Slimy Grubof the Pear, to Ge 
Flonculrel Soci pelety 535 b troy - poke 
Fuchsias, their treatment out of Strawberry Plantation, Ume (5 
doors 526 ¢ make - eg et 
Gardene coy 531 a@ | Strawberries, their prepara! see 
Cantante fonda. erie teentiment | 537 6 for forcing 5 - ape 
Gladiolus cardinalis, its tre: Upper Annandale Hort. a6 ¢ 
ment - 537 & a Plants, sickly < om 
berry Caterpillars, reme- Wall-tr as ee =e 
dies for ~ 33.5 — mc 
Grass-land, Hore. 
when to be manured saz 6 }- Wisbech Flor and 
Guano manure, 535 a 
Se See eT 
. = : pansies ie 
Printed essrs. Baapsuny 
ee eects eee ae Fe aniahed 
the Ovrice, 3, Caancus-srasst, Covert Ganpss, in ee en 
where all Advertivements and Communications are 
Editer,—Saturday, August 21, 1941. 
is 
ee Sl ae fe eS RAE Te ore a 
