COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE
MAY 26
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
STARES AND OTHERS v. BOWLER AND OTHERS.—EXTRAORDINARY CASE
This was a suit to determine the authenticity of a paper alleged to be a codicil to the will of Mr. Richard Ring, late of Portsmouth and Soak, Hants. It was supported by Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Cole, and Mr. Pritchard; and was opposed by the Queen’s Advocate, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. Inderwick, for the executors; by Mr. Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Jos. Brown, Q.C., and Dr. Wambey for the heir-at-law.
The case was one of a very singular character. The testator was a medical man at Portsmouth, but having inherited considerable wealth he had retired to a place called Soak, but he also kept up a house in Portsmouth. He died in June, 1850, leaving a personalty which was sworn under 40,000l., and a real estate of about 2,000l. a year. He directed by his will and codicil, dated on the 25th of the March previous, that his property should be left to accumulate for 21 years, and should then go to his heir-at-law, a Mr. John Ring. He also directed that Miss Elizabeth Bowler, whom with two other persons be appointed his executors, should keep up both his houses, and that a sufficient allowance should be made her for that purpose. The will and codicil were duly proved and acted upon; but it was alleged that in January, 1862, Miss Bowler received an anonymous envelope enclosing the following documents, which purported to be in the handwriting of the deceased:—
‟This is a codicil to my will, dated March the 25th, 1850. I, Richard Ring, of Soak Hambledon, Hants, being in the near prospect of my death, and wishing to please the Great Creator by benefiting my fellow creatures, do hereby give and bequeath, to the several individuals herein mentioned, the following sums, to be paid free of legacy duty, at the end of 12 years after my death. I give and bequeath to Elizabeth Bowler, of Common Hand, Portsea, the sum of 20,000l. Also to James Bowler, master in the Royal Navy, the sum of 5,000l., in token of my regard for his late aunt Goodwin, my housekeeper. Also to John Turman, of the Home farm, Chidden Hambledon, and to Richard Stares, of Lovedean Catherington, Hants, the respective sums of 2,000l. each. Also to my relation, John Ring, of Shead, near Petersfield, Hants, the sum of 30,000, in token of forgetfulness of all past differences. Also to each of the children of William Ring, of Shead aforesaid, who shall be alive at the end of twelve years after my death, the sum of 5,000l. Also to the Rev. John Lake Barton, late my tenant at the Hermitage, Hambledon, Hants, the sum of 15,000l. in remembrance of our long and intimate friendship, and in token of oblivion of all past differences. Also to each of the children of the said John Lake Barton who shall be alive at the end of twelve years after my death the sum of 5,000l. in token of my great respect and esteem for the late Mrs. Eliza Barton. Also to Richard Stares, sen., of Barngreen, Robert Stares, of Barngreen; George Maxwell, of Petersfield; and Henry Kennett, of Glidden Hambledon, Hants, the respective sums of 500l. each—the above sums to be paid by my executors, free of legacy, duty at the end of 12 months after my death out of my estate. Also I give and bequeath to Messrs. Grant and Co., bankers, Portsmouth, and Mr. Edmund Stokes, wine merchant, Portsea, the sum of 1,000l. in trust, for the purpose of building a ward in the Portsmouth and Portsea Hospital, to be called the Ring’s Ward. Also to Dr. Jones, of Barngreen Hambledon, Hants, and Mr. Higgins, of Hambledon, Hants, the sum of 700l. in trust, for the purpose of building a church at Hambledon, Hants—the two last sums, namely, the sums of 1,000l. and 700l., to be paid out of my money accumulated in the hands of my executors, or out of my money in the Three per Cent. Consols. The rest of my estate to be disposed of as my will directs. In witness whereof, I, the said Richard Ring, have set my hand and seal to this codicil written on three pages, this 2nd day of May, in the year 1850.—RICHARD RING.— Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of both of us at the same time, and in the presence of each other—Henry Padwick, yeoman, Catherington; John Weston X his mark, (R.R.) Shepherd. Chidden Hambledon, Hants.”
This was accompanied by the following letters, purporting to be addressed by the testator to Mr. Adams, an attorney:—
‟Soak, April 16, 1850.—Dear Sir,—I shall be much obliged if you come here to-morrow (Thursday), to receive my instructions for a codicil to my will, as I wish to give sums to several individuals.—I am, sir, your obedient servant, RD. RING.—Mr. J.P. Adams.”—
‟I beg to state my wish that this alteration of my plans be kept a strict secret for 12 years after my death.—R. R.”
‟Soak, April 24, 1850.—Dear Sir,—I have returned the draft, as I have altered my mind, and wish to leave larger sums. I will see you if you can call, but am not well enough to see you today.—Yours truly, R. RING.—Mr. Adams.”
‟May 6, 1850.—Dear Sir,—I have drawn out a new codicil, and send it for you to make a proper draft, but I am so ill that I may not live to sign it; so I sign this, and wish it to be put in force, if I cannot sign the draft. I repeat my wish that the codicil be not produced till 12 years after my death.—Yours truly, R. RING.—Mr. T. P. Adams.”
‟I will not trouble Dr. Jones to come again here, as Mr. Padwick or Mr. Fidlin will meet you to witness the draft.”
Miss Bowler taking no notice of the codicil, a letter in the same hand-writing, signed ‟A well-wisher to the hospital,” was sent to Messrs. Grant, informing them that if they would go to Mr. Parnell they would hear of something to the advantage of that institution. On inquiry, they were shown the above papers, which had been lodged with Mr. Parnell by Miss Bowler. Ultimately the codicil was propounded.
Mr. Coleridge, in opening the case for the codicil, admitted that it wa surrounded by circumstances of suspicion; but he contended that after all there was no such improbability about its authenticity as ought to lead to its summary rejection. He could give no account of it whatever, but he suggested that the instrument might have been in the hands of Miss Bowler, and that she, feeling some delicacy I n propounding it herself, at the end of twelve years, after having so long received 500l. a year under the will, had taken the above described mode of bringing it to light. The learned gentleman called a great number of witnesses, who expressed a positive opinion that the documents were genuine, and
The court. then adjourned.
London Evening Standard — Monday 29 May 1865
… Attached to the document were several letters which, it was alleged, were the instructions to an attorney named Adams (who was now dead) to effect the alteration in the disposal of his property. The attesting witnesses of both the will and codicil, as well as the medical man who attended him, were all dead.
Several witnesses were called in support of the codicil, all of whom said that they believed the document, as well as the signature, to be in the handwriting of the testator.
For the executors the Queen’s Advocate called
Miss Elizabeth Bowler, who said that immediately she saw the codicil she observed that it was not in the handwriting of the testator, and that he had told her that he would tie his property down for 20 years, in order that Mr. John Ring should not touch it. At the date at which the codicil appeared to have been made she said the testator was ill and unable to write.
Mr. Parnall, a solicitor of Portsmouth, said, that having known the testator for many years, he was well acquainted with his handwriting, and he had no doubt whatever that the codicil in question had not been written or signed by the testator.
Mr. Norton, a clerk to the late Mr. Adams, who, it was alleged, had drawn up and attested the disputed codicil, deposed that it was the habit of Mr. Adams to enter every business transaction in his books, and that there was no entry relating to the alleged codicil.
Mr. Goble, a solicitor of Fareham, who had purchased Mr. Adams’s business, said that he had searched amongst the papers, but was unable to find anything relating to the codicil.
Mr. Lacey, manager of the bank at Petersfield, at which the testator kept an account, and Mr. Stores, an executor under the first will, to whom a legacy of 2000l. was given by the disputed codicil, both stated that they were confident that the document was not in the handwriting of the testator.
The case was not concluded when the Court rose.
Morning Advertiser — Monday 29 May 1856
… On receiving these documents Miss Bowler looked upon them as forgeries, feeling assured that they were not in the testator’s handwriting, and handed them to her solicitor, Mr. Parnell, with instructions to burn them. That gentleman, however, thinking that something more might be heard of them, did not obey his client’s instructions as to the burning of them, but locked them up in his repositories. His anticipations in that respect were soon realised, for in the course of some ten days after Miss Bowler handed them to him, Messrs. Grant and Co., bankers, named in the codicil, received an anonymous letter, apparently in the same handwriting as the address of the envelope to Miss Bowler enclosing the documents, informing that if they went to Mr. Parnell’s, they would find that he had in his custody a will, giving 1,000l. to the Portsea Hospital. That letter was signed ‟A Well-wisher to the Hospital.” The matter accordingly thus got vent. The heir-at-law heard of it, tidings of it reached the sons of the Rev. Mr. Barton, all the others interested became aware of the sudden fit of benevolent feeling towards them, which had in his latter days come over the mind of the close-fisted Dr. Ring, and ultimately Mr. Parnell was called upon to produce the mysterious document. That ??? accordingly did so. It seemed to have taken all parties by surprise, for even the Rev. Mr. Burton, who not propounded it, stated that he at first considered it as a hoax. The heir-at-law, John William King, did the same. The executors, the present plaintiffs, Mr. Stares and Miss Bowler, followed suit, and to bring the matter to the test, Mr. Parnell deposited the codicil in the registry of the court, and the parties interested under it were cited to propound it. One great difficulty in the case was that Weston and Padwick, the attesting witnesses to the codicil, were dead. Mr. Adams, the solicitor who, according to the letters, was stated to have drafted the codicil, was also dead, and that, be it remembered, all before the codicil in question came to light. Padwick, it appeared, died in June 1857, Weston April 1861, and Mr. Adams, the solicitor, in 1857, so that all the parties who could have given evidence as to the genuineness of the codicil were dead before its production in 1862.
Evidence was then heard on the part of the propounders of the document as to its genuineness. The evidence given was for the most part by highly respectable witnesses, such as solicitors, land agents, merchants, and others, who had known the testator for many years, who all testified as to the genuineness of the document, and the handwriting of the testator. They were certain that the document in question was written by him, and that it was his signature which appeared at the bottom of it.
Against the codicil a number of witnesses were also called, who gave evidence exactly the other way, and stated that the codicil and letters received by Miss Bowler were not the handwriting of the testator, but that they were a plain and palpable forgery.
In support of this view of the case, an expert, Mr. Shoboe, was called, who, at great length, gave his evidence on the point, and which was to the effect that the codicil in question was not in the handwriting of the late Dr. Ring, that the letters accompanying the document which were sent to Miss Bowler were not his handwriting, and that the address on the anonymous letter which enclosed them, and the letter which was written to Messrs. Grant and Co., were in the same handwriting as the propounded codicil, and the letters accompanying it.
This closed the evidence on the part of both parties, and it being late in the afternoon, the learned Judge said he would not proceed further with the case that day, and that he would reserve for his consideration whether it would be neccessary for the Queen’s Advocate to reply on the part of the executor of the original will. He stated that much for the benefit and convenience of Mr. Coleridge, who supported the codicil of the 2nd of May.
The Court then adjourned, the evidence on both sides having been completed.
See also 2-Jun-1865