THE HOLLO WAY ESTATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9734, 2 February 1895, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE HOLLO WAY ESTATE.

ALLEGED FORGERY OF A WILL.

In the Probate Division, London, recently, the President, Sir Francis Jeune, hearing an application in the suit of Young v. Holloway, which has reference to the will of the late Mr. Thomas Holloway, the wellknown patent medicine' vendor, who died in December 1882, possessed of nearly £600,000 personalty and £(SO,OOO realty. Mr. William Henry Young has brought an action for the purpose of revoking probate of the will made by Mr. Hallo way in October, 1883, which Was established after an action at law in 1887, and Sir E. Clark now brought forward a motion praying the court to dismiss Mr. Young's suit, which he described as being vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. Mr. Young, in an affidavit, said he verily believed that he benefited as a legatee under an earler will, bub he gave no more tangible details than thab. Li his affidavit) Mr. Yourijf went on to Say that the signatures to tlio 1883 will, the will which ab present) stood, were those of Hasler, a coachman, and Elcock, the postmaster ab Siiririingdale, where testator

lived; At the trial in 1887, the issue of forgery was nob raised, but only the issue of the testator's state of mind. However, it came out in that trial that testator only signed one document on the day on which this will was dated. Yet another document, a deed in fedpecb to the Holloway College, was found to be signed on that day. MoreOver, Elcock had inspected the will ab Somerset House, ahd had expressed grave doubts of the genuiness of his alleged signa ture. Hasler was still coachman in G. M. Hollo Way's employ. He (Mr. Young) and many old friends arid employees of testator, and certain handwriting experts had agreed that the signature was nob that of Thomas Holloway. Elcock had also declared that Hasler, the coachman, could not write so well as this reputod signature of his. This testimony, however, Sir E. Clark desired to point out, was as old as 1887. , With regard to the conspiracy he had alleged, the wife and daughter of Mr. Young had written to Sir Martin Holloway asking for money. Mr. Pritchard: Nob for money? Sir E. Clarke : Yes, for money and pills; Mr. Young had nob asked for money ; bub had written Mis* Driver, saying, "I have at length gob evidence Which Will throw light on my urtcle's will. I look oil you as the tool and dupe in the hand* of others, and I write to give you Warning 1 , I will make it hot for George Martin Holloway, who «8 an unmitigated scoundrel, and who nob satisfied with ; perjuring himself, has caused you to aid his rascality." Mr. Pritchard was heard on behalf of Mr« i Young, and the President reserved his decision^- - - '