A DISPUTED WILL CASE.

Bruce Herald, Volume XI, Issue 1077, 10 January 1879, Page 5

A DISPUTED WILL CASE.

[By Telegraph.] Ooly one matter camo before the District Court to-day, but this was of an important nature . Probate was moved for, under inatructiorg given to Messrs Newton and Mirams to prepare a will for Mrs M irgaret Maloney, who died recently from injuries received on the railway. The facts were briefly these. The deceased made a will in 1876 bequeathing her property to certain persons, and appointing George Sumpter aud Daniel Toohey as her trustees. Shortly prior to her death Mrs Maloney left written, signed, and attested instructions with Messrs Newton and Miramt for a new will, making a fresh distribution of her property, and appointing Toohey Bole trustee. Mr Newton, for Toohey, now moved that probate be granted under the instructions given Newton and Mirama, as a will. Mr Hislop appeared for Sumpter, one of the trustees under the first will, ant Mr O'Meagher for the legatees under both instiuments. After the matter had been argued at length, during which the chief objection raised was against Toohey being sole trustee, Judge Ward held the instruction! giveu Newton and Miraras to be a valid instrument and granted the order, and ordered costs on all sides to be paid out of the estate. Mr Newton then undertook that steps should be taken in the Supreme Court to have a aecsnd trustee appointed to act with Toohey. There was very little difference in the manner in which the testatrix disposed of her property under the two insruments, the second dealing with funds not mentioned in the first will. The greatest dissimilarity lay in the fact that by the original will two trustees were appointed, while in the ■econd only one was named ; and it was chiefly on this ground that the uuestion as to whether the written instructions given to solicitors to prepare the second will could be accepted as a revocation of the prior and more formal instrument.