REMARKABLE WILL CASE.
Judgment was given on Wednesday in the Court Probate in the case of Stares and others v. Bowler and others. It 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. 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 £40,000, and a real estate of about £2,000 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 twenty-one 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 he 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, 1852, 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 twelve years after my death. I give and bequeath to Elizabeth Bowler, of Common Hard, Portsea, the sum of £20,000. Also to James Bowler, master in the royal navy, the sum of £5,000, 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 Stairs, of Lovedean Catherington, Hants, the respective sums of £2,000 each. Also to 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 £5,000. Also to the Rev. John Lake Barton, late my tenant the Hermitage, Hambleden, Hants, the sum of £15,000, 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 £5,000, 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 £500 each —the above sums to be paid 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 £1,000 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 £700 in trust, for the purpose of building a church at Hambledon, Hants—the two last sums, namely, the sums of £1,000 and £700, to be paid out of the 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 hand and seal to this codicil, written on three pages, this 2nd day of May, in the year 1859.—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 + 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,—l 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, Richd. Ring—Mr. J. P. Adams.”—‟I beg to state my wish that this alteration of my plans be kept a strict secret for twelve 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 call, but am not well enough to see you to day. Yours truly, Rd. Ring.—Mr. Adams.” ‟May 6, 1850.—Dear sir,—l 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 twelve years after my death.—Yours truly, Rd. Ring.—Mr. T. P. Adams.”—‟I will not trouble Dr. James to come here again, as Mr. Padwick or Mr. Fidlin will want you to witness the draft.”
The case was argued last week, and Sir James Wilde reserved his judgment until Weslnesday. The learned judge observed that no one would be surprised to hear that the court could not grant probate of the document. The evidence as to its handwriting was not very cogent; but if it had been, no evidence of that description standing alone had ever been held sufficient to establish a testamentary paper. So, too, with respect to any inference of authenticity to be drawn from the contents of the instrument the case of the propounders was very weak; but if it had been stronger it would not necessarily have proved any more than that a forger had possessed himself of a knowledge of the testator’s affairs, and had had acuteness enough to make use of it. As to the history of the paper, it was altogether irreconcileable with the theory of its being genuine. To make a will, and direct it to be kept secret for 12 years, would obviously tend so much to throw the estate into difficulty, and defeat the wishes of the testator, that it could hardly be the act of a sane man. It could not be supposed, if the testator made so absurd a will, that the court would be inclined to help his estate out of the difficulty. The legislature had provided that wills should be witnessed and attested, and if a testator threw away those safeguards and cast his testamentary evidence afloat on the world, the consequence would be that the court would always be inclined in such cases to doubt the genuineness of the document. There was no reason why the testator should desire concealment; but when the other side was examined it would be seen how plausibly such a course would meet the intentions of a forger. Because, of course, after the lapse of twelve years, when witnesses were dead, weight was given to the document; and that feature alone was, he thought, in limine, a strong circumstance against the codicil. This view was borne out, first, by the handwriting; secondly, by the contents of the instrument; and, thirdly, by the history of the instrument. Of these circumstances, that which was most valuable was the history of the instrument. As regarded the handwriting, all knew how that might be imitated. As regarded the circumstances, a forger would be likely to make them suit his purpose. Therefore, these were of less weight than the history of the document itself. The evidence of experts was not perhaps, very cogent; but they were easily obtained, and certainly none had been called in favour of the document. The evidence of Mr. Chabot was also sufficient, if there had been no other, to convince any man that this paper was a forgery. He had pointed out, not one, two, or three, but at least six separate things in which the codicil violently fell away from the ordinary habit of the testator, and that in such a remarkable way, and with such reiteration, that it must be said such a document could hardly be genuine. The codicil was signed ‟Richd. Ring.” Not one single document had been produced in which the signature of the testator was written in that way. In lieu of a dot in the contracted word the testator always made a small horizontal line; but ‟Rd.” with two upright commas was a thing the testator never did; and the notion that a man should depart suddenly from that which was so habitual as to be perfectly involuntary was so unlikely as to be even, if standing alone, a matter of the greatest weight. But the strongest of all was the next point. When the testator wrote a word ending with "t" he used to cυrl the ‟t” up over the last letter; but the forger, finding that, had made him cυrl all the ‟t’s” up, whether in the body or the end of the word, whereas the testator never turned up the ‟t” except at the end. The testator always wrote ‟th” together, as other people did. The forger always separated the ‟t” and the ‟h.” He always wrote a separate ‟o.” There were ninety instances the codicil of ‟t” joining the ‟o’s,” but in no other instance was the testator ever known to do so. He always struck a line through his capital ‟P’s.” This was never done in the codicil. Every one of these was a strong thing. To say that a man who habitually formed his letters one way would suddenly depart from that course in writing a codicil, and would sign his name differently and form his letters differently, seemed to him be utterly incredible. He was therefore entirely satisfied that this was a base and very clumsy attempt at forgery. It did not become a court to point to the quarter from which the codicil came, nor could he say the evidence was such as to warrant a conclusion in that direction; but these were circumstances which induced the court to pronounce against the codicil.—Mr. Barden was condemned in costs. The costs of the heir-at-law, who is an old gentleman of 71, and does not come into possession before 1871, were allowed out of the estate.
See also 27-May-1865