of the preceding day, more especially as the disposition was in some respects different. But, supposing the former paper to be referred to in the second paper, the execution of this paper was a supersession of the former. The learned judge then went through the evidence of the subscribed witnesses to the paper on the 3rd of December. As no interrogatories had been addressed to these witnesses by Mrs. Goodlake, he observed, although their evidence in chief was somewhat equivocal as to the existence of another paper, yet, coupled with the affidavit of Mr. Phillpotts, it would have induced the court to admit the papers to probate. But when the legatees under the codicil were before the court, they administered interrogatories to the witnesses (though not without some opposition on the part of the executors, whether from an apprehension that the witnesses would not stand the test of cross-examination, or that some glimmering of light would be thrown on the conduct of the executors), and when interrogated, all the witnesses distinctly deposed that they saw no other paper than that of the 3rd of December, and that the deceased did not publish both papers as his will. If any witnesses could negative a case, these witnesses, on their crossexamination, had negatived the important allegation of the executors -that these two papers were published and declared by the deceased as together containing his will. It had been argued that the two papers must have been before the deceased, for that the latter by itself conveyed no interest to any person; but that was no presumption that that paper was there. Mr. Chadborn, when the paper of

the 3rd was executed, was summoned from a dinner party in a hurry, and was not likely to have brought the other paper in his pocket. But on the face of the paper itself there was no corroboration of this suggestion, for the words were all in the singular number" I declare this to be my will," not this paper and the paper of instructions, "in witness whereof, I have to this my last will set my hand." So that, from the terms of the paper itself, there is a presumption that he did not intend the other paper to be embodied. Upon the failure of direct evidence, another species of proof was had recourse to-that the disposition was extremely probable. Three of these gentlemen were in no degree related to the deceased; the other was the son of Mrs. Goodlake, and therefore a second cousin once removed. Alderman Wood appeared to have been an intimate friend of the deceased, who had a great regard for him. He had been introduced to the deceased by his sister, about 1820, and after 1824 they had become very intimate; it was therefore extremely probable that he would have given a very considerable proportion of his property to him. With respect to Mr. Chadborn, nothing was more probable than that he would have been appointed as executor. He had been his confidential solicitor for many years, and had managed his whole estate, and there were declarations ascribed to the deceased that Mr. Chadborn had given him his services gratuitously, and that he would put him in a corner of his will. The deceased's opinion of Mr. Chadborn's disinterestedness did not appear to rest on very solid grounds, for, though he did not make out a bill of charges, he kept

a regular entry in his books of his attendance and services, and had since his death sent in, as a set-off to claims against him, a bill for services rendered to the deceased to the amount of between 2,000l. and 3,000l. With respect to the other executors, there was no improbability, rather the contrary, in their being benefitted by the deceased's will. But these were mere grounds of probability-they went no further-they did not lead to the act of disposition. The learned judge then considered the declarations attributed to the deceased, which he considered loose and vague, or improbable, or inapplicable, or as intended to parry impertinent questions, or to quiet the apprehensions of those who kept money in his bank, lest on his death there should be no administrator of his effects. He was of opinion that the executors had failed in establishing the paper of the 2nd of December as part of the testamentary disposition of the deceased, and he pronounced against it. This being the case, no person before the court had an interest in propounding the paper of the 3rd of December, for the sole interest of the supposed executors depended on the paper of the 2nd, and that being pronounced against, their interest was disposed of, and both Mrs. Goodlake and Mr. Hitchings opposed the will. There only remained the paper of July, 1835, which had come to light in so mysterious a manner. There was nothing in the amount of the sums bequeathed by this paper, or in the persons named as legatees, which was improbable, considering the immense property possessed by the deceased; nor was there anything on the face of the paper to excite suspicion with reference to its con

tents. It had been produced in a mysterious manner, and that circumstance and the non-appearance of the writer or transmitter of the paper, notwithstanding large rewards had been offered, threw a difficult burden on the legatees. The letter which accompanied the paper suggested a charge against some persons or other of an atrocious character-namely, an attempt to burn this paper along with others. Who the persons were the court had no means of exactly ascertaining; but, from the plea, the charge seemed to point to the executors, or some person connected with them. There was, therefore, nothing to support this paper but the evidence of handwriting, and it was admitted that the court could not, on the evidence of handwriting alone, pronounce for the validity of the paper: there must be something to connect it with the deceased. The rule was binding on the court; for, though the legatees laboured under these disadvantages, and though they alleged that this paper had been rescued from destruction, there was no proof of this, and the court could not act on conjecture only. The circumstances stated in the allegation were of some importance, and this had induced the court to allow some latitude of plea to the legatees. They alleged that the executors had free access to the repositories of the deceased, and had ample opportunity of destroying or suppressing papers, and it had been admitted by them that one paper had been destroyed by Mr. Chadborn, acting upon the advice of Mr. Phillpotts, which it would appear was of a testamentary nature, and would have been sufficient to constitute Mr. Chadborn executor, according to the

tenour of that paper. As all the persons capable of giving information on these points were in the deceased's house, the allegation was necessarily a kind of fishing allegation. But, even supposing that there was ground for believing that the executors, having access to the repositories of the deceased, had abstracted or destroyed a codicil, of which there was no proof, still there would be no evidence that they abstracted this particular codicil; and mere probability was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of law against a paper not coming out of the repositories of the deceased. The evidence of the handwriting on the instrument was, as usual, extremely contradictory, but it preponderated strongly in favour of its genuine ness; so much so, that coupled with the probability of the disposition, he should not hesitate to pronounce in favour of the paper, if he could do so on evidence of handwriting alone abstracted from all other considerations. The learned judge then commented upon the suspicions attaching to Mr. Chadborn on his visit to the house of the deceased early in the morning of the 20th of April, in respect to the time of his visit, on which his statement had been contradicted by several witnesses. What passed on that occasion it was not possible for the court to conjecture; but where a party acted as Mr. Chadborn had done, it did create a suspicion that he was there for some purpose which would not bear to be disclosed. There was another circumstance which threw a degree of suspicion on the executors; the servants, Ann Lewis and Ann Nichols, were alleged to have had reason to believe that the deceased had exeVOL. LXXXII.

cuted other testamentary papers, of a later date than the 2nd and 3rd of December, and knew who the person was who sent the paper to Mr. Helps, and that papers had been burnt in the deceased's house; but the legatees were not able to get access to these witnesses, who were in the custody of the executors. Now, when such imputations were thrown out against the executors, why did they not produce these scrvants? What could they apprehend from their cross-examination? Their conduct in this respect tended to support the suspicion against them. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, though the evidence, in affirmance of the genuineness of the codicil, as far as handwriting went, was extremely strong, it was impossible for the court to pronounce for the paper on that ground alone, and he consequently pronounced against it, as well as against the validity of the paper of the 2nd of December, 1834. On the question of costs, the general practice was, that where a party set up a paper like this, and failed to establish it, they were liable to costs. This had been done in cases where, as in the present, there was no suspicion that the party propounding the paper had been privy to any fraud. But there were peculiar circumstances in the present case which induced the court not to adhere to this course-namely, that, but for the production of this paper, the executors would have wrongfully obtained probate of the two papers of the 2nd and 3rd of December, 1834. And who were entitled to press for costs? Not the executors, for they had not established their

case.

Mrs. Goodlake might press for costs, as she had opposed the codicil as well as the will; but

when the court looked at her conduct, as the nominal opposer of the will, it could not consider that she was entitled to her costs. But there was a further question as to costs. The executors had propounded the papers in an improper manner, and having failed in establishing them, the court would be bound to condemn them in the costs; but the difficulty was to say whose costs they should be condemned in. The legatees had failed; Mrs. Goodlake had come forward in reality to support the case they set up. But the court, for the sake of public justice, in order to prevent such experiments for the future, and to mark the court's disapprobation of the manner in which the executors had brought their case forward, by a suppression, if not a misrepresentation of facts, should condemn them in the costs incurred by Mr. Hitching in the opposition he had given to the papers.

The delivery of the sentence occupied nearly six hours and a half.

The proctors for the executors gave notice of an appeal from the court's decision.

NEWCASTLE ASSIZES, JULY 30. TRIAL FOR MURDER.

Archibald Bolam was charged with the murder of Joseph Millie, on the 6th December, 1838.

The prisoner pleaded, "Not guilty."

From the statement of the counsel for the prosecution, it appeared, that the prisoner had, for sixteen years, held the situation of actuary to the savings bank of Newcastle, and had performed the duties of that office with satisfac

tion to the parties connected with the establishment, as well as with high credit to himself. In November, 1837, the deceased, Joseph Millie, had been taken into the office by the prisoner, as a temporary clerk, and subsequently became, through his influence, permanently engaged in the office. During the time that Millie was in the office, it had been remarked that he received singular marks of attention and kindness from the prisoner, who had even been in the habit of having meat dressed at his house, and then sent to the residence of the former for his children. Millie was a man of 54 years of age, had, in days gone by, been in business at South Shields, but failed; had become a widower, and was left with four children. On the 4th of December, two days before the murder, he was appointed to the clerkship. On that day, he was invited by the prisoner to dinner, and the porter of the establishment also received a similar mark of kindness. Towards the close of the year, when the accounts were being made up, it was usual for the prisoner and the clerk to remain at the office as late even as 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and on the present occasion, Thursday, the 6th of December, the prisoner had taken his dinner there, it having been sent to him. Millie, however, went home to dinner, at half-past 3 o'clock, and returned. The bank was situate in a stack of buildings, called the Arcade. The door of the bank opened into a sort of vestibule, which was common to all the other parties who lived in the various flats of the building. On opening the door, there was a staircase leading from the left hand side of the vestibule up to the three flats

which were above the offices used by the bank, the latter being on the ground floor.

The first witness called in support of the prosecution was the porter, Matthew Cree, who deposed, that on the day of the murder, when he left the office, at half-past 3 o'clock, the prisoner and the deceased were sitting together," side by side, at the table, near the fire, like two brothers." At this time, the door of the waiting room, which opened into the Arcade, was locked, and the key placed in its usual place. On the 4th of December, witness dined with Bolam, at his house in Gateshead; Mr. Millie, the prisoner, and himself, made up the party. After dinner, Bolam filled a glass of wine to Millie, drank to Millie's health, wished him long life, and hoped he might long enjoy his situation.

Two of Millie's children, a boy and girl, of 12 and 15 years of age, deposed, that their father was to have gone home to his tea at half-past 4 or 5 o'clock, on the 6th of December, but that he never returned to his home, after he had quitted it at dinner-time.

The next witness, a watchman, of the name of Moore, went on his beat that afternoon at 5 o'clock, and he stated, that he was stand ing near to the door of the bank in the Arcade. There were, at that hour, many persons flocking to the post-office, which was in the Arcade. He continued about that spot until near 10 o'clock, shortly after the post-office was closed, and he did not observe anything occur sufficiently remarkable to attract his attention. Moore was suc· ceeded in his duty by a person named Davis, who went into the Arcade at a quarter before 11

o'clock. At that hour, the outer door of the bank was open, and continued so until half-past. At 12 o'clock, Davis saw that the door was closely shut, and then walked on to the end of the Arcade, and having arrived under one of the windows of the room looking into Manor-chase, entered into conversation with another person, with whom he there met. That conversation, it was stated, was carried on in so loud a tone of voice, that it could have been heard in the bank, and was actually overheard in Pilgrim-street, by Miss Latimer, a dress-maker. This witness stated, that being that night unwell, she had risen several times, and that on neither occasion had she seen either fire or smoke issuing from the bank. Even as late as half-past one she had looked, and saw nothing. About 20 minutes to 2 o'clock, however, a dim light was observable through the windows of the waiting-room. The light was similar to that proceeding from a fire which was going out.

William Dunn, apprentice to the proprietor of the Newcastle Courant, deposed, that he went past the bank, at 20 minutes past 2 o'clock, on Friday morning, December 7, to put some papers into the post-office. At that moment, he did not observe any fire, but on his return, he saw smoke coming up on the outside, and a glarelight within. He instantly ran to the newspaper-office, and informed some persons who were there, of what he had just witnessed, and they all proceeded to the spot.

Daniel Golding, one of the police, was in Pilgrim-street when the fire began. I first saw it about 20 minutes to 2 o'clock. I