COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BARNARD v. BURROUGHS AND WIFE.

     The Queen’s Advocate appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for the defendants. 

     The testatrix was Miss Jemima Bradley, an old lady, who died on the 9th of January, 1861, at lodgings in Canterbury-road, Newington Butts, leaving a property valued at 707l. In the year 1856 she had made a will and codicil distributing the money amongst her nephews and nieces. She afterwards became displeased (as was alleged by the defendants) with some of them, and expressed a wish to see them no more. To 1859 she went to live with the Burroughs, to whom she at first paid 42l. a year for her board and lodging. Afterwards she had a severe attack of paralysis, and an arrangement was made to the effect that she should be attended night and day by Mrs. Burroughs or her daughter, Ann Smith. They paid her every attention, and she became exceedingly attached to them. She determined, in fact, to make a new will in their favour. For that purpose she sent to Mr. Chester, a solicitor in the neighbourhood, who placed the matter in the hands of Mr. Thomas William Roffey, his managing clerk. Mr. Roffey being perfectly unacquainted with her and seeing the state she was in requested Dr. Iliff to call upon her and examine her, so as to satisfy himself of her testamentary capacity. Dr. Iliff having accordingly reported that she was perfectly competent to carry out her wishes, Mr. Roffey made the will, and by that instrument she left 200l. to Mrs. Burroughs, 50l. to Mrs. Smith, and the residue to her only surviving brother, Mr. Edward Bradley, of Petersfield, Hampshire. She subsequently expressed a desire to add to it, a codicil largely increasing Mrs. Burroughs’s legacy. When that paper was prepared, however, she said she wished to give her brother a life interest in her Turkish Bonds; whereupon Mr. Roffey suggested that there should be a new will. The testatrix assented, and this last instrument was duly executed on the 1st of September. Before that, however, Dr. Iliff had seen her again, and had asked her to tell him what it was that she wished to do? She then, without assistance, recited all her wishes as they were set forth in the document. She afterwards put her mark upon it, and it was attested by Mr. Roffey and Dr. Iliff. Probate in common form had been taken out, and it was now called in by the plaintiff, a niece of the deceased, who impeached its validity, on the ground, first, that it had not been duly executed; secondly, that the testatrix at the time of its execution was not of sound mind, memory, and understanding; and, thirdly, that it had been procured from time to time by the undue influence and control of Mrs. Burroughs and Ann Smith.

     Mr. Roffey, Dr. Iliff, Mrs. Burroughs, and Mrs. Smith, were examined in support of the will. 

     The case was prooeeding when we went to press.

Morning Post — Thursday 04 December 1862

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE
DEC. 3.
(Before the Judge Ordinary)
BARNARD v. BURROUGHS AND WIFE.

     The Queen’s Advocate appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for the defendants.

    The testatrix was Miss Jemima Bradley, an old lady, who died on the 9th of January, 1861, at lodgings in Canterbury-road, Newington Butts, leaving a property valued at 707l. In the year 1856 she had made a will and codicil distributing the money amongst her nephews and nieces. She afterwards became displeased (as was alleged by the defendants) with some of them, and expressed a wish to see them no more. In 1859 she went to live with the Burroughs, to whom she at first paid 42l. a year for her board and lodging. Afterwards she had a severe attack of paralysis, and an arrangement was made to the effect that she would be attended night and day by Mrs. Burroughs or her daughter, Ann Smith.They paid her every attention, and she became exceedingly attached to them. She determined, in fact, to make a new will in their favour. For that purpose she sent to Mr. Chester, a solicitor in the neighbourhood, who placed the matter in the hands of Mr. Thomas William Roffey, his managing clerk. Mr. Roffey being perfectly unacquainted with her and seeing the state she was in requested Dr. Iliff to call upon her and examine her, so as to satisfy himself of her testamentary capacity. Dr. Iliff having accordingly reported that she was perfectly competent to carry out her wishes, Mr. Roffey made the will, and by that instrument she left 200l. to Mrs. Burroughs, 50l. to Mrs. Smith, and the residue to her only surviving brother, Mr. Edward Bradley, of Petersfield, Hampshire. She subsequently expressed a desire to add to it a codicil largely increasing Mrs. Burrough’s legacy. When that paper was prepared, however, she said she wished to give her brother a life interest in her Turkish Bonds; whereupon Mr. Roffey suggested that there should be a new will. The testatrix assented, and this last instrument was duly executed on the 1st of September. Before that, however, Dr. Iliff had seen her again, and had asked her to tell him what it was she wished to do? She then, without assistance, recited all her wishes as they were set forth in the document. She afterwards put her mark upon it, and it was attested by Mr. Roffey and Dr. Iliff. Probate in common form had been taken out, and it was now called in by the plaintiff, a niece of the deceased, who impeached its validity, on the ground, first, that it had not been duly executed; secondly, that the testatrix at the time of its execution was not of sound mind, memory, and understanding; and, thirdly, that it had been procured from time to time by the undue influence and control of Mrs. Burroughs and Ann Smith.

     Mr. Roffey, Dr. Iliff, Mrs. Burroughs, Mrs. Smith, and other witnesses, were called in support of this case.

     The Queen’s Advocate said that though an old lady was permitted by the law to ‟endow a college or a cat” if she pleased, the law did not allow a capricious will to stand unless there were good grounds for thinking that it had been deliberately adopted by a person competent to do a testamentary act. In this case the testatrix had expressed a settled determination to bequeath the bulk of her property to her niece, Christiana Barnard, on the ground that she was a helpless cripple; and that she should without cause have altered that determination raised a presumption that she must have done it when her powers were failing, or when she was under some undue pressure.

     The plaintiff having been examined,

     The court adjourned.