Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/588

 Celebrated OId- World Trials.

547

CELEBRATED OLD-WORLD TRIALS. I. THE MATLOCK WILL CASE1

THE great Matlock Will Case was one of the strangest and most interesting disputes that has ever occurred in the history of the law testamentary. It related to the validity of three alleged codicils to the will of a person named George Nuttall, who died at Matlock in Derbyshire, on 7th March. 1856. The testator was possessed of con siderable estate, both real and personal. He was a bachelor, had no near relations, and was not on intimate terms with such as he had. His cousin, Catherine Marsden, had lived with him as housekeeper for many years, and was living with him in that capacity at the time of his death. One of her sisters was married to John Else, assist ant overseer of Matlock and bailiff of the County Court. Nuttall was a land-surveyor, and had been accustomed to employ Else in copying accounts and collecting rents; and Else wrote a hand not unlike his, though distinguishable from it. Nuttall made his will— the genuineness of which was not disputed — on 1 5th September, 1854. It was prepared by his attorney, Mr. Newbold, but was copied in duplicate by the testator, and both copies were duly executed. Thus there were two copies of his will, both holo graph and both in his possession, and one was kept in his bedroom cupboard. Shortly stated, the terms of Nuttall's will were as follows: His cousin John Nuttall was made residuary devisee of the bulk of his real estate, which was worth from .£2000 to ¿£3000 a year. To Catherine Marsden were left the furniture and effects, the testator's dwelling-house, an annuity, and a house occupied by Else. Else received an interest in certain titles. Part of Nuttall's estate

was a quarry let to a farmer. Job Knowles, and Sir Joseph Paxton. Under the will, Knowles took a right ot working this quarry for life subject to his lease. Nuttall had been very ill for some time previous to his death, and suffered in particular from an abscess in his back. He died, as we have said before, on the 7th of March, 1856. On the 2d of March he had had a conversation with his attorney, Newbold, and desired his attendance on the following day; but when Newbold came next day according to arrangement, he was unable to speak; and although he pointed to the bedroom cup board, the object of his anxiety could only be surmised. On one side it was alleged that he wished to get at the will for the purpose of cancelling it; on the other side it was suggested that he intended to acknowledge it as his last will and testament. The will contained several instances of misspelling, — "debth" for "depth," " oweing " for " owing," and " surgion " for " surgeon." Between the date of the testator's death and the day of the funeral, Job Knowles announced that " there was something else." The cupboard was searched, and the holograph duplicate was discovered. It was found to contain an inter lineation — of which there was no trace in the second copy — giving Else an annuity of £100. No question as to this interlinea tion was raised by the residuary devisee, John Nuttall, who died on I2th April, 1856, leaving his property to the principal defend ants in trust for his infant children. Less than a fortnight after Nuttall's death the first of the three disputed codicils was found by Else. It purported to be holograph and to be attested by two laborers, Buxton and

1 The great Matlock Will Case, Cresswall v. Jackson, Derby v. Richard Keene & London & Co., 1864.

Simpkin Marshall