DEATH-BED JOKES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11056, 6 May 1899, Page 5 (Supplement)

DEATH-BED JOKES.

PRANKS ON SORROWING RELATIVES. The sense of humour must be strong in the man who perpetrates jokes on his deathbed ; but such has been done on more than one occasion. ! Sir John Sloane, who died in 1836, made such conditions in his will that their fulfilment caused people to regard them as nothing but a joke. He directed that a certain box belonging to him should not be opened until 30 years after his decease. A second box was not to be opened until 20 years after the first, and a third was to remain intact until another ten years had passed away. The boxes were opened when the stipulated periods had expired, but were found to contain nothing whatever of any value, and the only conclusion people could come to was that these very precise directions were only intended by tile testator as a little joke. Several years ago a Liverpool tradesman made a will leaving all lie possessed to his only child, a son who had caused him endless trouble and expense. On his death his son made a diligent search for the will, of which, however, he could find no trace. Subsequently, while some books were being removed from a shelf, a sealed envelope dropped out of a Bible, and on being opened was found to contain the missing will, on the back of which the testator had pencilled a memorandum to the effect that lie had placed the document in the Bible because he -Knew it was the last book bis wayward heir would be likely to take up. As for the dead man's property, with the exception of his furniture and a few pounds in the house, he had disposed of it all before his death. His bank account had been closed, and various shares and securities sold for the benefit of certain charities to prevent the property being squandered by tho spendthrift son. It was rather a neat joke to bequeath property already disposed of, and to conceal a will scarcely worth searching for. °

A Yorkshire merchant once played a similar trick on expectant relatives. Though supposed to be exceedingly wealthy, lie was really a poor man, which fact did not prevent him leaving several thousand pounds to charities, several thousand more to relatives. and the remainder of his property to another avaricious relative who affected a very warm regard for him. Iho feelings of the legatees, on finding, when lie died, that although each had been left a substantial legacy by the will, there was only sufficient property to satisfy the deceased's debts, can .be "better imagined than described. As for the relative who expected to get the bulk of a supposed large estate he has never ceased to anathematise his defunct kinsman for his cruel testamentary joke. An eccentric but wealthy American quite recently made a daughter who married against Ins wish the victim of his humour, it had long been his heart's desire that she should wed a son of the Star and Stripes and when a young Englishman sought her hand, while 011 a visit to America, the irate parent would not hear of the engagement But the damsel had a will of her own and before many months had elapsed she became the wife of her British suitor, and with him took up her residence in England. Not long since her father died, and on his will being read it was found to contain a bequest to her of a large number of shares which the deceased had held in a certain London joint-stock concern. On paper this was a very handsome legacy, but in reality it was no legacy at all, inasmuch as the shares were absolutely worthless, the company having gone into liquidation before her father had made his will. I here could therefore be no doubt as to his motive in making this worthless bequest.