“THE LOCUSTS.”

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 45, 28 June 1913, Page 5

“THE LOCUSTS.”

SIR J. M. SCOTT’S WILL. WASHING DIRTY LINEN. _ I [By Electric Telegraph—Copyright] 1 [United Press Association.] London, June 27. ‘ The Sackville case is one of great interest, and the newspapers are de-1 voting columns to it. Smith said that the Sackvilles knew! John was very wealthy. They were in , acute financial difficulties. Lady Sackville had all the fascination of an accomplished woman of the world, who considered the psychology of man and knew what liberties she could take with impunity. She gained her ascendancy now by threatening to quarrel with him and then by endearments. During the reading of one of the letters Lady Sackville burst into tears and sobbed. A crowded court, including many society women, listened to the correspondence with the closest interest, They showed John’s affection for Vita, the Sackvillb’s daughter, and his pathetic anxiety to smooth away any disagreement between the Sackvilles and his family and friends. The nicknames used caused considerable amusement, particularly when Smith said that tho Scott family called the Sackvilles “the locusts.” John’s servants called Lady Sackville “The Earthquake.” Once Lady Sackville wrote: “I hope you are thoroughly ashamed of your big fat self.”—a reference to the fact that John weighed 25 stone. On another occasion Lady Sackville wrote, with some acerbity, complaining of nagging. John replied denying this, and added; “I reprove you sometimes •when you growl about the discomfort of living upon your income.”

Smith statedi that Major Arbutnot would give evidence that when asked to dine at John’s house he found i Lady Sackville and her daughter in j the library closing the drawer of a; desk. They hurriedly left the house, i When Arbutnot saw John he mention- j sd the Sackvilles. John became exci tad, and evidently did not know that they had been in the ..houseWith perspiration on his brow he exclaimed in French : “My God! It’s discreditable.” He added something like “Je suis mine”, (I am ruined). In 1910 John gave Lord Sackville codicil revoking a legacy of £30,000 to Lord Sackville. -

By October John and Lady Sackville had quarrelled, and John was considering adding 1 his Works of art to the Wallace' collection.

Lady, Sackville replied that it was very hard for her daughter to have such a slap in the face.

“MY DEAR, MY CHOSEN, BUT NOT MINE.” In January, 1911, Lady Sackville asked' for a loan of £IOOO, and drew a cheque before John was able to bor•ow the money. John wrote complaining that this was unbusiness-like, and included; “I don’t suppose you told Lionel of the proposed loan, you curious old creature. You deserve a smacking.” . The next letter quoted the poem by Owen Meredith, beginning “My dear, my chosen, but not mine.” On March 8 John wrote, denying that he had promised to leave her money, though if even she deserted him she would have some.

Smith suggested the draft of the missing codicil made in September, 1911. Apparently Lady Sackville was iware of his intention to leave her only £20,000 and the income upon £30,000. She wrote: “I shall have to. work again to keep things going.” The differences' were composed by November.

On January 16 Lady Sackville wrote: “I must send a little line to say goodnight, as you were much better this morning. I liked it when you called me ‘little rascal.’ ”

John died suddenly at Hertford House on the 18th. After his death a solicitor sent Lady Sackville a letter wlritten -some years before with a copy of the will, reading:—“Little friend, —This conveys my last farewell, I left you a goodly portion of objects d’art and a sum of money which will make you comfortable. I like the idea of leaving you an independency. It has been a great pleasure, and only a fitting reward for the affectionate interest you always displayed. My last words are, “I am very grateful; may we meet in a land where there is no more sorrow.’ ” Alicia, Scott’s eldest sister, gave evidence of Lady Sackville’s influence on her brother. [The above case created considerable interest in May last year. When Sir John Murray Scott died in January, 1912, he left an estate valued at more than £1,000,000. He had been private secretary to Sir Richard Wallace, who left his great art collection to the British nation, and upon Lady Wallace’s death was bequeathed her large fortune, consisting of real estate and works of art. In February last year an application was made to the English Courts to appoint a receiver in the estate, and General Scott, who was a beneficiary under the will, was appointed. An intervener, in the person of Lady Sackville, declared that, under the will, she was a legatee to the extent of £1,000,000, including the art treasures in Paris, estimated to be worth £200,000. The Court thereupon directed that she l>e made a party to the action. A draft of Sir John Murray Scott’fl will was found among his panerg. It showed that there was a codicil, which did not accompany the will

in possession of the Court, and a reward of £IO,OOO was offered to any person who could deliver the original. It might have the effect of reducing the amount to which Lady Sackville is entitled from £1,000,000 to £30,000. Except for the income on the sum of £30,000, which has been bequeathed to Lady Sackville, the estate will be diverted to Mr .Malcolm Scott, a brother of the deceased baronet, in the event of the missing codicil being discovered and proved to correspond with the draft.]