brother directors, and tell them what he had heard, instead of which he went and consulted with Longbottom, who stated that these reports were the result of rivalry. If Mr. Torrens honestly disbelieved the whole story, no blame attached to him except imprudence; but if it shook his confidence in the scheme and he did not communicate it to his colleagues, lest they should decline to bring the company out, then he did not act in good faith in allowing the prospectus to go forth. That was a view of the case which he submitted to the jury with great pain and reluctance. At that time the plaintiff's money had not been received, and if the story really shook his confidence in the honesty of the scheme, there was evidence of mala fides on his part.

The Chief Justice then read the correspondence with Mr. Mowatt, and as to some passages said that a carelessness and recklessness in the conduct of the directors, which tended to bring about the disastrous consequences that ensued, was only too plain and patent to be gainsaid.

His Lordship then adverted to the visit to Canada and showed how Mr. Eastwick had been duped by Prince's conversation, and by the tank which had been filled with other oil, and so afforded a pretext for not working the wells. As to the telegrams sent to the directors by Mr. Eastwick and young Hay, expressing their satisfaction, the jury would have to consider whether they thought them genuine. Were the directors to act on the strength of the positive statements, or to believe the warnings of Mr. Nelson which were really only anonymous letters? The conduct of the directors in sending the money before they had the detailed reports of Mr. Eastwick and Mr. Hay, was rash and inconsiderate, but that would not make them liable unless the jury thought they were not actuated by good faith.

Returning to Mr. Eastwick, his Lordship said that he was rash in not communicating with the persons in Canada to whom he had letters of introduction, but he trusted Longbottom and Prince, and his letters were intercepted. After adverting to the other warnings received from Mr. Chesson and Mr. James, he said that the fact of three directors receiving each 1,000l. though brought forward as having been a bribe, might be explained by supposing that Longbottom, having a large sum in his possession, had given the money to them in consideration of their having signed the memorandum of association for 40 shares each. As to Sir Keith Jackson's mission, that gentleman was at first misled, but afterwards saw through the scheme. On his report and from other causes alarm was taken, and a bill was filed in Chancery against Longbottom, but, as the time of drawing debentures and interest was at hand, a meeting of bondholders was called and the position explained to them, the suit against Longbottom was dropped, and they applied for an order to wind up the company. The works had been abandoned, and the whole property had become comparatively valueless; but from the liquidator's report, notwithstanding the great changes that had taken place, with an outlay of 50,000l. the undertaking would become a paying concern, and it was for them to say whether there was anything of reticence or bad faith in what the directors did at those meetings.

That being so, and it being now known that a prodigious fraud and swindle had been practised by the vendors' agents here, and the price extorted from the company, had the directors (the defendants) lent themselves to that fraud with the intention of enabling the vendors and their agents to effect this fraud upon the public, or had they without any intention of doing so grievous a wrong, and committing so monstrous an iniquity, allowed their names to be used by Longbottom and his associates for the purpose of putting forward statements

to the world, and induce persons to advance money without taking care to have in their own minds a satisfactory belief of the truthfulness of the statements put forth?

The jury retired to consider their verdict at half-past three o'clock. At eight they were recalled into court by the Lord Chief Justice, when the foreman stated that they could not agree. The jury retired again for an hour, but failing to come to an agreement were discharged.

III.

THE ST. LEONARDS' WILL CASE.

SUGDEN AND OTHERS V. ST. LEONARDS AND

OTHERS.

ON Wednesday, November 17th, Sir J. Hannen commenced the investigation of a very strange case in the Probate division, relating to the late Lord St. Leonards' will. When the late ex-Chancellor died in January last, no will could be found; and, notwithstanding the most careful searches and the offering of a large reward for its production, no will has been forthcoming. And this, notwithstanding that the ex-Chancellor in his writings most carefully inculcated the advisability of every man having his affairs settled by his will at all times, both in health and in sickness. Moreover, it was well known that his will had been made; he had shown it to several persons, and had frequently talked over his dispositions with his friends. This will has now been proved without being produced.

At the date of his death, Lord St. Leonards was possessed of several landed estates. He had given suitable fortunes to each of his six daughters who had married in his lifetime, and besides real estate he left personalty to the amount of 60,000l. The ex-Chancellor's family had consisted of the following:-Lady St. Leonards, died in 1861. His son Henry, who, if he had survived his father, would have succeeded to the peerage, was born in 1811, married in 1849, and died in December 1866, leaving a widow, and, among other issue, his eldest son, Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, now Lord St. Leonards. The second son of the late Lord is Frank, who is in holy orders, and vicar of Hale Magni, in Lincolnshire, was born in 1817, and survives his father; but Arthur, the third son, died in 1868, leaving a son, who bore his name. Of his seven daughters, Charlotte, the plaintiff, alone remains unmarried.

It was on the 13th of January 1870 that the testator made the will which is now in dispute. It was prepared and executed by the deceased in the presence of his daughter, Miss Charlotte Sugden; it was read over to her by her father. The earliest will seems to have been executed in 1867 and 1868. By it he appointed his son, the Hon. and Rev. Frank Sugden, his daughter, the Hon. Charlotte Sugden, and his son-in-law, Mr. John Reilly, his trustees; and he devised to them his estates of Childerley Hall, Sutton Scotney, Peasemere, Filgate, Forest Lodge, Boyle Farm, the aits in the River Thames, together with his land and cottages at Thames Ditton, in trust for the use of his

grandson, now Lord St. Leonards, for life, and, after his death, for his first and other sons successively in tail-male; with remainder, with like limitations, to his grandsons, Henry Frank Sugden and Walter, and with ultimate remainder to his son Frank Sugden and his issue. He directed that the pictures and other objects of art, &c. at Boyle Farm should be held as heirlooms, and enjoyed with the real estates which he had devised; and he gave to his daughter, Miss Charlotte Sugden, a legacy of 6,0007., directing that, in addition to other smaller bequests, she should have, out of his farming stock, "two cows, to be selected by herself; two dozen plants out of his conservatory, also to be selected by herself; and two dozen bottles of his old sherry," with which to begin housekeeping. And he finally directed his executors to pay to his daughter 607. per annum during the life of "an aged person to be named by her, to be applied for the benefit of that person." It was stated that the aged person referred to was the widow of a deceased brother of the testator, and that she herself was far advanced in years. On the 13th January 1870, the testator continued the dispositions in this instrument by a paper, which commenced 'This is an addition to my will," and he then, according to Miss Charlotte Sugden's evidence, proceeded to dispose of the Kingsdown estate in favour of his son Frank, to whom he gave the life interest, and subject thereto to his first and other sons successively in tail-male; directing, however, that in the event of his personal estate being insufficient to pay in full the legacies bequeathed by him, Frank should only receive 300l. a year out of the estate, the rest of the income being applied to the making up of the deficiency. He also gave legacies of 1507. each to three grandchildren, daughters of Mrs. Jemmett, in addition to an annuity of 501. each; and, after other small bequests to other members of his family, he named his daughters Charlotte Sugden, Caroline Turner, and Augusta Reilly his residuary legatees. The will was written on nineteen sheets of letter-paper, and after the deceased had prepared it, it was executed by him in the presence of certain of his servants, who were called in at his request to attest it. On the 3rd of March 1870 he added a codicil to the will; on the 4th of July 1871, a second codicil; a third codicil on the 16th of September 1871; a fourth on the 20th of September 1871; and a fifth on the 24th of November 1871, the most important change in his testamentary dispositions made by these papers being a gift to Miss Charlotte Sugden of three meadows at Thames Ditton, on which she built a residence in 1873, with the sanction and assistance of her father. A sixth codicil, however, which was executed on the 25th of March 1872, altered most materially the disposition of his property, as it affected his heir and successor in the title, and the change in his intentions was, it was alleged, brought about in this manner. In 1870, the heir and grandson of the testator, Mr. Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, went to Rome, and there made the acquaintance of a young lady to whom he shortly afterwards became engaged. The testator highly disapproved of the engagement, and to mark his displeasure of his grandson's conduct prepared a codicil on the 18th of April 1870, by which he cut down his bounty to his grandson to an annuity of 8007. a year in the event of Mr. Burtenshaw Sugden's marriage with the lady in question. A copy of this codicil, which was subsequently destroyed, was forwarded by the testator to Mrs. Henry Sugden, the mother of the defendant; but when it became known to the young lady's friends that Lord St. Leonards disapproved the marriage they at once broke off the engagement, and grandfather and grandson became again reconciled. A second matrimonial engagement into which the defendant entered in 1872 gave still more serious umbrage to his grandfather, and it was suggested that

it was in this displeasure the sixth codicil had its origin, giving benefits to his son Frank and to Harriett Mann and Mary Ann Sugden.

By a seventh codicil, dated May 2, 1872, he further advanced his son Frank, and in proportion, cut down the bequests and devises contained in the will in favour of his heir, by giving him Boyle Farmhouse, with its contents and grounds, for life; and by the eighth and last codicil, which was executed on the 20th of August 1873, he confirmed the dispositions which he had made in favour of his daughter, Miss Charlotte Sugden.

Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram appeared for the plaintiffs, Miss Charlotte Sugden and Mr. Frank Sugden; Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Bayford for Lord St. Leonards; the Hon. A. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr. Bayford for the younger brothers and sisters of Lord St. Leonards and Mrs. Mann, a daughter of the testator, intervening; and Dr. Spinks, Q.C., for Mrs. Jemmett, also a daughter of the deceased; Sir Henry James, Q.C., and Mr. G. Browne for Mr. and Mrs. Henderson; and Mr. Searle for Mr. Arthur Sugden, a grandson of the deceased, who take part in the suit as interveners.

The Hon. Charlotte Sugden was examined, and stated that she had always lived with her father, and for several years had acted as his amanuensis, and otherwise assisted him when engaged in the revision of his numerous legal works. She had read all that her father had ever published, and when preparing his "Handy Books" it was his habit to read them to her, observing that if she could follow their reasoning, the general public, for whose use they were intended, could also understand them. She described the circumstances attending the preparation of his will on the 13th of January 1870. On the morning of that day she observed that her father was busy with his papers, and that when writing he had his will of 1867 before him. Called by her to luncheon he declined to suspend his labours, and when he had finished writing he expressed pleasure at having completed his will. He then read it slowly to her, and executed it in the presence of two of his servants, who were summoned for the purpose. She declared that her father had made no secret of his intention to give the Kingsdown estate to his second son, and that when he became alienated from his grandson he avowed his determination to make Mr. Frank Sugden the head of the family. The testator, she said, was much averse from his grandson's marrying, not only because of his youth, but also because of the trouble which the necessary settlements would involve, and he was also much incensed at the part which his grandson took in the agitation in 1870 for the removal of the Dean of Wells. The final rupture between them occurred in 1872, when Mr. Burtenshaw Sugden's visits to Boyle Farm ceased. With regard to the series of disgraceful" hoaxes" which were practised on Lord St. Leonards in the latter years of his life, they gave, the witness said, the utmost pain and annoyance to him, one in particular-an order for a monument with a false inscription to the memory of Lady St. Leonards, renewing all his affliction for his wife's loss. The so-called hoaxes or practical jokes commenced in 1868, and terminated in 1870. The communications generally came through the Paddington Station of the Great Western Railway, but though every means, including the employment of detectives, were used to find out the author, no clue to his identity could be discovered. She was present at the execution of all the codicils; on each occasion she saw the will, and read it twice or thrice. In February 1873, her father had his birthday dinner, and was in his usual health. Among those present were Mr. Samuel Warren, Mr. S. Walpole, Colonel Turner, and others. By the eighth codicil she was left some further property. When that instrument was made the testator, in locking the will

with the codicils in his will-box, observed, “There, I have done the last earthly thing I wish." The box (a small despatch-box) was placed in its usual position on the floor of the room called the " saloon," in which the testator generally sat and wrote. In a conversation which then took place between her and her father, he said it was now happily hardly possible for a person to sign a will without its being valid. In March 1874, her father was taken ill, and at that time she had the keys of the box containing the will in her possession. In January 1875, at her father's desire, she gave the keys of the box containing the will to her brother Frank, as she was going to Brighton for change of air. On her return Frank gave her back the keys of the box. The box was kept in her room in case of fire. In December 1873, thinking her father might wish to see the will during his illness, the box was removed to his room, where it remained until April 1874. The box remained in her room until it was opened by Mr. Trollope, the solicitor. At her father's desire she had custody of the box containing the will; but in the January of the present year she went out of town, and, as usual, she gave her keys to her brother Frank, and on her return to town she again had the keys redelivered to her. In the summer of 1874, being very ill, he called her to his bedside, and said he was trying to recall how he had distributed his property. She then repeated to him how he had left his estates. At the conclusion he said, "That is exactly as I desire." Her father was greatly attached to her, and said how pleased he was to think that he had settled his earthly affairs. He thought it to be the first duty of every man to make a disposition of his property in such a manner as to prevent dispute. He considered that he had done so. At the beginning of the present year her father was taken seriously ill. The last words her father said to her were, that if he thought he had not left her everything that she desired he should not die happy. Her father died on the 29th of January in the present year.

Miss Sugden was then cross-examined by Dr. Deane, Q.C. She said ever since 1973 her father knew where the deed-box was kept, and had constant access to it. During her father's illness he never inquired about his will, and she never mentioned the subject to him. The precaution he took about the safe custody of the will was occasioned by the many hoaxes played upon him previous to his death. The key of the will-box was always in her custody or that of her brother Frank. The pages of the will were pinned together the last time she saw it. She did not think the codicils were attached together. She had not seen the will since August 1873.

The witness was then cross-examined with regard to the circumstances under which some of the codicils were drawn. With regard to the copy of the will she had drawn up she had omitted from it all matters on which she was at all uncertain. She never heard her father speak about any revocation he had made in the will; he invariably limited his conversations to his bequests and legacies. She was unable to state the effect of the passages in the will through which her father had drawn his pen. In reference to an erasure in one of the codicils, her father told her that in alterations in testamentary papers it was always better to erase than to obliterate, as people could discover the words or figures obliterated by the use of magnifying glasses and telescopes. She never knew the memory of her father to fail beyond the confusing of certain names. There was a little forgetfulness on that point occasionally, but it soon passed. After the last codicil she and her father went out for a drive, and on their return they found the box containing the will where they had left it. She remained at Brighton a week on the occasion of her illness, and during the