POST-MORTEM SANDBAGGING

Evening Star, Issue 14512, 2 November 1910, Page 9

POST-MORTEM SANDBAGGING

The opinion of a Spanish lady, who recently died in London, concerning hei relatives has just been made public by reason of the proving of hor will. It u expressed therein with considerable venom. As to my sisters, nieces, nephew, brother-in-law, and cousin, nothing—nothing shall como to them from mi but a bag of sand to rub.themselves with. None deserve even a good-bye. I do not recognise a single one of them. It is useless even to communicate my death to. them. They have too much abused and lied against me. As, regards her husband, who survives her, the lady’s opinion may hi gathered from tho restrictions she placed on the use of the £I,OOO she bequeathed him. He cannot touch this £I,OOO, or do anything whatsoever.. He must live on the interest which he will have from this sum, and, if he remarries, from that day the income and the capital shall no longer bo his. He may dispose of them only if he-be-comes a monk in’an Order, otherwise it is only income, and I repeat it: If my husband remarries, from that day neither capital nor interest shall be for him any -more, and on the day, say, of his death, if he remains a widower, this £I,OOO, with the rest of what remains of my estate, shall bo to found a house of refuge for couples without children who cannot find means of housing, and who are in the most complete need of shelter. Having vented her spleen on her relations, tho testator became quite charitable. She left £4OO to the Society for the Protection of Animals, on tho condition that they took care of her dogs and cats, and half that amount to the Littlo Sisters of the Poor, providing that six of them prayed as long as her body remained above ground and followed her to tho grave. This is not the first time by any means that a will registered at Somerset House has disclosed a testator’s opinion of his or her 11 nearest and dearest.” Some little while ago a testator living near Birmingham left his property to his daughter on condition that she paid to a person named tho sum of 3}d for tho purchase of a horupon cord or halter for the use of his dear wife, “ which I trust she may make use of without delay.” A Derbyshire tradesman, who died not long ago, not merely cut off his wife with the proverbial shilling, but stipulated that that sum was to constitute her sole claim against his estate, and directed that any expense sho might be put to in connection with his will should bo met out of her own pocket, and not bo chargeable against his estate. . ' Two years ago a railway official stated in his will that My estate would have been considerably larger if it had _ not been for my unfortunate marriage with the princess of human and the cleverest known legal daylight robber. My associations with this perambulating human vinegar cruet I consider to have cost me considerably over £4OO.

Perhaps the meanest case on record of a bequest of this nature was that of a man who loft to his wifo tho sum of one farthing, with directions that it should be sent to her by post in an unstamped envelope.—London correspondent.