Rensselaer Union, Volume 7, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 June 1875 — Carious Will Cases Before the English Coarts. [ARTICLE]

Carious Will Cases Before the English Coarts.

The will of an eccentric old gentleman who lived at Norton, and died leaving £IOO,OOO, was contested by his nearest bf kin, as not made in a sound mind. He left the whole sum to charities and not a penny to his relatives. This elderly Mr. Holme seems to have been a veritable Timon He evidently detested his species with all the warmth of his crusty old heart. He was wont to visit the cheerful Cockney sea-side resort at Ramsgate, and his Ramsgate landlady was put upon the stand to prove his habits. Her tale was a hint for a novelist in search of a “ character.” She said that he invariably called children “ devil’s cubs.” “ If,” went on the landlady, “he saw a stout old lady passing the house, he would call me to the window and say she was a fat old hag, and that she had come there to thievfe and rob people. If he saw a packet coming into the harbor he would point it out and say he wished it would sink with all on board. If he saw sailors sitting on the rails he would wish that the fellows would fall in and' he drowned. He said he would like the whole of Ramsgate to be swallowed up in the sea. He expressed a desire that all the trains might be smashed, since they brought nobody to the place but thieves ana vagabonds. As to cooking, he would never take anything from my hands or those of my servants. He had a terrible antipathy to women. He called them ‘ scum.’ He spoke of his sister as a woman he did not know. He used to throw meat out of the window to Bluff, the dog, and say that he would rather S've it to Bluff than to any Christian. e often discoursed on religion, and one of the articles of his creed was that * poor people would never go to heaven.’ ” Mr. Holme’s London landlady gave similar evidence. She said that he would call women “ fagots,” and wish he could see them whipped; and the landlady was so much scandalized by his actions that she doubled his rent; but “he took no notice of it,” and went on hating mankind and “paying like a gentleman.” While he vented his detestation on his relatives he left his half a million dollars to charities, but tied up in such a way that it was scarcely profitable for the societies to accept his bequests. Another carious will case was heard about the same time as that of Mr. Holme at Westminster. A widow Darned Burdett died, leaving a will with some remarkable provisions. Sjhe had had an only son who had become a cripple and had died several years before his mother. By her testament she left a house and grounds in a certain Tillage to three per-

sons, one of whom was her lawyer, tinder these “conditions: The house was to be kept locked, barred and bolted for twenty years after her death. The doors and windows were to be bricked up on the outside and the furniture was to be left in exactly the position it was when; she. died. The casements were to be closed by zinc or iron doors, covered with planking tightly screwed down and sealed by the executors. Access was only be had to the house by a solitary back-door, leading to the kitchen. Then the house was to be rented free to any “ respectable married couple” who would consent to occupy it under these conditions. The old lad}- added a codicil, wherein she ordered that, immediately upon her death, her pony, pigeons, poultry and dogs were to be shot. The will was disputed on the ground of imbebility and of undue influence upon her by her lawyer, who was one of the legatees. The principal evidence relied upon to break it was the fact that, like Lady Tichborne, she had for years refused to believe that her poor, crippled son was dead. At last her conviction became so strong that she sought and obtained permission to have the body exhumed. She gazed upon the strange features which defray had so sadly altered, and was fain to admit that he was indeed no more. The jury, however, disagreed, being unable to tell whether Mrs. Burdett was mad or only eccentric. Yet her delusion respecting her son was oue that is not uncommon. Such exhumations are not rare. Lord Lytton/ ih''his will, directed that he should be left uninterred long enough to dissipate all possible doubt of his decease. And as for making a tomb for beings still instinct with life of her country-house, it was an oddity not more strange than some people have been guilty of many a time and oft. A story is told of a rich and irascible uncle, whose nephew and heir had set his heart upon a young lady of whom the old gentleman emphatically disapproved. Ha called his nephew to him, and, without mincing his words, declared that if he did not marry some other woman within a year he would cut him off with less than a shilling. The young rascal cast about for a way to secure at once his fortune and his sweetheart, and at last discovered one. He married an old lady of ninety-three whom he found in the workhouse. In no long time he became a widower and a millionaire, and lost no time in leading his lady-love to the altar. A case, the converse of this, occurred about a year ago. A young man of twen-ty-three, a surgeon, happened to be the favorite nephew of a wealthy and widowed aunt. It was his first care to in no wise compromise his “ great expectations.” But he happened to be traveling from the Cape of Good Hope to England,, and on shipboard saw and loved a comely widow with three children. On arriving on his native soil he informed his aunt of the state of affairs and introduced her to the lady in the weeds. The aunt, unhappily, at cnce conceived a great aversion to the widow. She cajoled and threatened the surgeon and at last declared that if he married her he should not have a penny of her fortune. The nephew was not so deeply in love as to be reconciled to such a loss, and at last made a contract with the adamantine aunt to the effect that he would not marry the widow on the condition that his aunt would allow him £3OO a year during her life. The widow, on hearing this, brought a suit for breach of promise, and got a verdict for £6OO. Thus two years of the surgeon’s pension went by the hoard. No sooner had the two years elapsed than the aunt became obstreperous and refused to pay the £3OO any longer. The mercenary youth thus lost both his income and his widow. Fired with indignation and despair he’ sued his aunt for the pension and produced the written contract; and the court decided that as long as he had kept his part of it the aunt must fulfill hers.' She is probably paying the pension to this day; and it may be guessed that the surgeon is tolerably consoled for the Joss of his widow. —AppletonP Journal.