Cresswell and Another v Jackson and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1864 |
| Date | 01 January 1864 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 440
Nisi Prius
REPORTS of CASES Decided at NISI PRIUS and at the CROWN SIDE on CIRCUIT; with SELECT DECISIONS at CHAMBERS. By T. CAMPBELL FOSTER, and W. F. FINLASON, of the Middle Temple, Esquires, Barristers-at-Law. Volume IV. Michaelmas Vacation, 1863, to Hilary Vacation, 1867. London, 1867. [1] Couit of Queen's Beuch, Guildhall, London Sittings, Hilary Teim, 1 %4, coram Cockburn, C J cresswell axd another v jacksox and another (On the trial of an issue directed by the Court of Chancery to try whether three codicils, set up by and mostly in favom of the principal plaintiff, in whose handwriting it was suggested they were, there being also an interlineation in the will in his favour, also suggested to be in his handwriting the attesting witnesses to the first codicil denying their attestations, were allowed to be examined by the plaintiffs adversely but evidence, by compausoii of his handwriting and otherwise, was received with a view to show the probability of1 forgeiy of their attestations and of the codicils , and the jury were directed, that they might find the forgery upon the circumstantial evidence alone, even against positive testimony of attesting witnesses; 2. That the onus was upon the plaintiff, who set up alternations and codicils against an admitted will, to satisfy the jury as to their genuineness ; ." That it the evidence left the jury in doubt on that question they should find for the defendants, who claimed under the will ) Issue out of Chancery to try whether three codicils to the will of (leorge Nuttall, who died on 7th March, 1856, having made his will on September lUth, 1854, were genuine, the said codicils being dated respectively on the 27th October, 1855, the Hth January, 1856, and the 12th January, 1856 The plaintiffs Cresswell and Else affirmed that the codicils were genuine The defendants, who were executors of the residuary devisee under the will, denied it. Karslake, Field and Hannen were for the plaintiffs, who set up the codicils. Hayes, Serjt , Ballantme, Serjt , and Wills were for the defendants, who claimed under the will [2] The testator, who lived with a housekeeper named Catherine Marsden, in September, 1854, employed one Newbold, an attorney, to prepare a diaft of a will in blank, which he filled up and signed in duplicate, and he took the duplicates to the attorney's office, where, on the 10th September, 1854, he duly executed them both, and took both of them away with him Under this will, John Nuttall was residuary devisee of the bulk of the real property, which was considerable On the 7th March, 1856, the testator died, and after his death one of the duplicates was discovered, and, after his funeral, the other , the latter with an interlineation of twro bequests in favour of Else and Marsden Tte will was proved with that interlineation John Nuttall died soon after the testator, leaving children, for whom the defendants were trustees On the 15th September, 1851, the testator made las will in duplicate, undei which 440...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telbin v Fecheter
...English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 901 Nisi Prius Telbin and Fecheter 4 F. & F. 1 M2. TELBIN V. FECHTER 901 [1042] Civil Court, Sussex Summer Assizes, 1865, coram Martin, B. telbin v fechteb (On a contract to do work for a certain time, there being evidence as to some promise that it should......