2.--An important will case, Wright _v._ Wilkin, commenced at the Norfolk
Assizes, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury. It was
brought in the form of an action for ejectment to recover possession of
certain tenements and lands held by the defendant, Thomas Martin Wilkin,
solicitor, of Lynn, under the will of an old lady named Mary Mann. The
plaintiff, who was heir-at-law, alleged that the will was obtained from
an infirm and weak-minded person by fraudulent practices and
contrivances. The will had already been disputed, and in that trial a
verdict was given in favour of Mr. Wilkin; this action was brought
because there had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff facts and
circumstances which had been entirely withheld from the former jury. The
trial lasted until the afternoon of the 3rd, when the jury found for the
defendant, subject to argument upon certain points reserved. These were
stated in the Court of Queen's Bench on April 9th, and were to the effect
that the devise to the defendant was defeated by his neglect to comply
with a condition of the will, namely, that the devise was conditional on
the devisee paying off certain legacies within twelvemonths in case the
personal estate should be insufficient for that purpose. It transpired
that the personal estate was insufficient, but the defendant did not pay
one of the legacies within the time stipulated. It was also contended
for the plaintiff that the devise to the defendant was void, inasmuch as
it was a contrivance to defeat the Statute of Mortmain, several of the
legacies being for charitable purposes, and that the defendant had misled
the testatrix by not telling her that, under 43rd George III., she could
leave as much as five acres of land for the repair of the church. Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn granted a rule _nisi_. In the Court of Queen's
Bench, on November 27th, the Lord Chief Justice said the rule must be
discharged, as the words in the will were not intended to impose a
condition, the non-observance of which would involve forfeiture. Mr.
Justice Crompton and Mr. Justice Blackburn concurred. The rule was
discharged.