Lisburn Standard - Friday, 5 April, 1918
LYNCH -- April 3, 1918, at a Private Home, Dublin, to Mr. and Mrs. P. J. LYNCH, Bull Ring, Drogheda -- a son.
CAMPBELL -- Easter Day (suddenly), at Portnagolan, Cushendall, Rev. Stephen Campbell, of Maydore, Ealing, Canon of St. George's Church, Jerusalem. -- Interred in All Saints', Eglantine, Hillsborough, yesterday (Thursday).
WATTERS -- March 29th, at 53 South Parade, Belfast, William Watters, late of Ballymave, LisbuRn.
MISS M'CORMICK and her Brothers desire to return sincere thanks to the many friends who sympathised with them in their sad bereavement. Park Parade, Lisburn.
SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE
RECORDS OF OLD LISBURN
AND THE MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.
-- -- --
Edited by JAMES CARSON.
-- -- --
-- -- --
SEYMOUR--WALLACE LITIGATION, 1871.
Extracts from "Ulster As It Is," by Thomas Macknight, 1896.
The litigation between Sir George Hamilton Seymour and Sir Richard Wallace for the possession of the Irish estates of the late Marquis of Hertford was proceeding. The Irish Court of Common Pleas gave a judgment in favour of Sir George. This was in confirmation of a verdict delivered with great reluctance by the jury, according to the direction of the Judge of Assize is Belfast. Notice of appeal was, however, immediately given, and in the Ulster newspapers advertisements appeared cautioning the tenants not to pay any rent to the defendant, who had obtained the judgment in his favour. The tenants, a very large body, in and around Lisburn, were in a state of great perplexity. The agent of the estate, Walter T. Stannus, who up to this time had acted in a neutral capacity between the litigants, thought that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was irrevocable. He at once acted as Sir Hamilton Seymour's representative, and thus placed himself in a position towards Sir Richard Wallace he had afterwards much reason to regret. The Ulster tenant farmers generally watched the progress of this great case with much interest. It was for the time the general topic of conversation. Some of those on the estate were perhaps not disinclined to profit by the opportunity of not paying their rents. They were, however, very earnestly advised by a newspaper in their confidence that they might be quite sure they would have, sooner or later, to pay the money to the last farthing, and that they had better hoard it until they knew who their landlord should finally by law be declared to be. The glorious uncertainty was exemplified in the progress of this litigation. Before seven judges in the Irish Court of Exchequer Chamber the case was again considered, and a majority reversed the unanimous judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. It was known that an appeal would be made to the House of Lords. Some time afterwards, however, a compromise was come to between Sir Richard and the defendant. Sir George Hamilton Seymour agreed to take four hundred thousand pounds, and allow the larger Hertford estate in Ireland to remain with Sir Richard Wallace. The question turned on the interpretation of a codicil in Sir Richard Wallace's favour. Some lawyers maintain to this day that the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was right, and that it should have been upheld. Sir George Hamilton Seymour was, however, not rich; he thought it better to be on the safe side.
Stannus v. "Northern Whig."
While the litigation was proceeding, and for some time afterwards, the management of the Hertford estates had been the subject of unfavourable comment in several of the Ulster newspapers, and especially in the "Northern Whig." Walter T. Stannus, who had been superseded by Mr. Capron, the head of the London firm of Sir Richard Wallace's solicitors, thought that a paragraph and a leading article in that journal reflected upon himself. He brought an action for libel. The trial excited the greatest interest in the North of Ireland, for a plea of justification was entered, which implied that certain allegations of tyrannical conduct were true. The case came before Chief Justice Whiteside and a special jury in Dublin. The trial continued for several days, and through the Christmas holidays. Without in any way wishing to reflect on Chief Justice Whiteside's memory, it may perhaps be permitted to be said that, bred as he was in an extreme Conservative school, and with some very strong Protestant and territorial prejudices, on the bench in political cases he was at least as much an advocate as a judge. Some of the witnesses, however, confident in their statements out of court, lost their self-possession under examination in the box. The judge retorted on them with merciless severity, and he was, of course, upheld in this conduct by the leading counsel for the plaintiff, the late Serjeant Armstrong. The serjeant contended that an agent had a right to use a certain amount of influence for political objects over tenants on a large estate. He was professedly a Liberal, and had sought to obtain the representation of the ancient borough of Carrickfergus as a Liberal. But he now said in court, "Away with sentimentalism on this question between landlords and tenants."
One tenant who stated that he had been induced to sign a document of which he did not approve, was met by the Chief Justice with the statement: "Well, sir, well, you are of sane mind. You have not been in a lunatic asylum, have you?"
This for a time checked the overbearing style of Serjeant Armstrong. He appeared utterly confounded. Nor was this strange. The Bar and a large number of people in court knew that the learned serjeant had himself once been placed under certain restraint.
But this was not the last of Chief Justice Whiteside's not very judicial utterances. The question about the sane mind led to another one from the bench. The timid farmer, who had never been in the box before, said that he was perplexed when he signed the paper, with beside it a threatening notice to quit. "Surely, sir," said the judge, "you knew what you were doing?"
"Oh, yes, my lord," said Mr. Palles. the present Chief Baron, who was one of the counsel for the defendant, "he knew perfectly well what he was doing under a threat of a notice to quit." Loud cheers
from the large body of tenant farmers in court greeted this announcement. "Clear the court." shouted the Chief Justice.
The judge's charge to the jury was strongly in favour of the plaintiff. He plainly stated that had it not been that the question was in some degree connected with electioneering matters in Lisburn, he would have been disposed to state that the management of a large estate was a private business and not a subject for public criticism in newspapers.
The jury, after a considerable delay, told the judge that there was no prospect of coming to an agreement. He left them to themselves and went to dinner. On his return he was informed that there was still a disagreement. In answer to a juror he gave a direction to which immediate objection was taken by Mr. Butt, who acted as principal counsel for the defendant. The judge did all he could to obtain a verdict. It would, he said, be much to be regretted if the costs of a new trial should have to be incurred. At last the jury gave way. They returned a verdict; but only for fifty pounds on each of the two counts. This could scarcely be considered a triumph to the gentleman who brought the action. That he was guilty of intentional tyranny was not believed nor even intimated. There is here no attempt, no desire to revive any of the charges which were testified to in the witness-box. It must be confessed, however, that to administer a large Irish estate for an absentee landlord like the Marquis of Hertford, under a system through which the tenants had no legal protection, was trying to the character of any human being.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
The first hearing of the Seymour--Wallace case came up in the Assize Court in Belfast, before a special jury, when a verdict was recorded for Seymour. A full report of the proceedings appears in the Belfast Press of August 1st, 1871.
In the Court of Common Pleas, Dublin, before four judges, the judgment on appeal was again in favour of Sir George Hamilton Seymour. A report of the case appeared in the Press, November 18th, 1871.
The case on appeal then came before the Exchequer Court, January 18 and 19. Judgment was delivered February 26, 1872, when three judges gave judgment that the decision of the two previous courts given in favour of Seymour should be affirmed, four judges giving judgment that the decision should be reversed and deciding in favour of Sir Richard Wallace. Arrangement were immediately made for a final appeal to the House of Lords. A few months afterwards, however, an agreement was come to between the parties, Sir Richard Wallace taking over absolutely the Irish estate and paying Sir George Hamilton Seymour £400,000.
Intense excitement prevailed in Lisburn and all over the estate during the litigation. The tenants refused to pay their rents, not knowing who the actual owner might ultimately be. It was arranged, however, in the meantime to pay the rents to Mr. Stannus, the Hertford agent, the money to be lodged in the Bank of Ireland in the names of the two litigants pending the final settlement.
On December 19th, 1872, commenced the extraordinary libel suit heard in Dublin before a special jury -- Walter T. Stannus v. the "Northern Whig." The case continued for eight days. Damages were laid at £10,000 and resulted in a verdict for Mr. Stannus wish damages on two counts of £50 each.
(Next week: Judgment of the Court of Assize, Belfast.)
-- -- -- --
NEW GERMAN ATTACK.
-- -- -- --
FIERCE FIGHTING ALL DAY YESTERDAY.
-- -- -- --
ULSTER DIVISION'S HISTORIC REARGUARD ACTION.
-- -- -- --
The Germans resumed the attack yesterday morning, and the fiercest fighting of the week raged all day long. They attacked from the south of the Somme to Grivesnes, on a front of more than sixteen miles. Sir Douglas Haig reports that on the British front the enemy were everywhere repulsed, except immediately south if the Somme, where our troops were pressed back a short distance in the neighbourhood of Hamel.
The French communiqué states that the Germans launched enormous forces in the determination to break the front. In our Allies' sector the attacking forces only succeeded at the price of very heavy sacrifices in gaining some hundreds of yards of ground and in capturing the villages of Mailly-Raineval and Morisel (south-west and west respectively of Moreuil). The French troops made progress at Grivesnes.
It is expected that Austria's new attack on Italy will be begun before long.
The English Press paid profound tributes this week to the heroism of the Ulster Division, which, although entirely cut off, fought a rearguard action of a week's duration back to the new British lines. Clerks, cooks, and all sorts of handymen joined in the fight, and added lustre to our Imperial Province. The casualties were naturally very heavy, and, unfortunately, they have not yet all been reported.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
The balance of the air losses has been more equal within the past few days, the special correspondent at the British headquarters points out, and he makes the remarkable admission: "We are a long way from obtaining what may be called command of the air."
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Captain J. F. Harvey, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.
Private William Archer, Canadians.
Sergeant T. Waring, R.I.R., Dunmurry.
-- -- -- --
Captain John Forsythe Harvey, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, killed in action last week, was a son of Mr. William Harvey, Inverary, Downshire Road, Cregagh, Belfast (formerly of Lisburn), and nephew of Mr. T. J. Harvey, Market Square, Lisburn. He was in the damask department of Messrs. Richardson, Sons, & Owden, Ltd., Donegall Square North, Belfast, before he entered the army. He received his commission on 7th July, 1916, and had commanded a company since 7th August, 1917.
Private William Archer, Canadians, killed in action oil the 24th March, was a brother of Mrs. Samuel Greene, Railway Street, Lisburn. He was home on leave about Christmas.
Sergeant Thomas Waring, Royal Irish Rifles, was wounded on 24th March, being shot in the right leg near the knee. He is a son of Mr. Joseph Waring, W.M. of Derriaghy District L.O.L. He served his time with Lindsay Bros., and was in the employment of Messrs. Robert Watson & Co., Ltd., Belfast, previous to the war. Sergeant Waring was a prominent member of the U.V.F. He has been removed to an hospital in Liverpool.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
LUCKY LISBURN OFFICER.
Lost Everything but His Life in Hecatomb of Dead.
We have been favoured with the following vivid account of the experiences in the opening days of the big German offensive of a young Lisburn artillery officer who lost everything but his life in that terrible hecatomb:--
27th March. -- Our poor battery has had a pretty beastly time. The major is gone -- a misfortune which I doubt if any of us will ever get over, for he was one of the finest and best fellows I have ever met. Two subs. are also gone, so the officers mess is still feeling pretty dismal. Now we have been pulled out, though for how long no one seems to know. Anyhow, we are now resting in a very pretty little village a long way back, and everybody is thoroughly appreciating it. Certainly we all need a rest. At present, like everyone else, I am entirely without kit, beyond what I stand up in. What I think I regret losing beyond everything is my flask. I had it with me for a great part of the time in my British warm, but when I wrapped up a wounded man in my coat the whole lot got lost.
28th March. -- It would take me too long to give you a detailed account of our trials and troubles since the eventful 21st, but shall try to give you a brief sketch of them. I was O.O. on the 20th, so was out at about 7 a.m. We had a fairly quiet day, but at dinner-time a huge programme came through, and I was out all night at the forward section. The major turned up at 9 p.m. At 5 a.m. oh the 21st the Bosche turned on such a barrage as I have never seen before except on the 31st July, '17, and kept it up until 11 a.m., when his infantry came over. Our battery was well registered, and I have never seen officers and men stick such filthy shell-fire better. The major was splendid, walking up and down between the guns bucking everybody up. One officer got it slightly at 9 a.m., and another at 11, rather badly; but we got them clear. At 2 o'clock the major; gave the order to go out of action, as machine guns were making things unbearable, and we pulled out minus everything we possessed. By devious ways we got to our rear section at 8 that evening. We went into action there, and
Fired all night and all the next day,
everyone being dead beat, and the loss of the major taking the heart quite out of us. He was the last to leave the forward section, and we never saw him again. At 6 o'clock on the 22nd the situation was again decidedly unhappy, so as we were out of all communication with the brigade the captain ordered us to hook in and get away again. It appeared afterwards that it was a jolly good job we did. The stores of our guns got lost, so when we reached our rendezvous we were to all effects out of action. However, we put the guns in position, and at 5 a.m. turned in wherever we could lay our heads. We found brigade that morning (23rd), and tried to find stores. Everything was in a muddle, so we failed horribly. At last we got enough to lay out a line of fire and fire a few shells. At night we got up some ammunition, and next day we fired as best we could, nobody having had more than five or six hours' sleep since the 20th. In the evening I was detailed to go up and find out all I could about things. I started at 5, and at 8 reached an infantry brigade H.Q. in a shallow trench, where things were decidedly unpleasant. I sent back three reports, and when I had no desire to be either bombed or taken prisoner I made my way back as fast as I could and reported to my own brigade, my battery having moved out after my second report. After nine-mile walk -- or rather hobble -- I found the battery alongside a road waiting for lorries to take us out to what we suppose is rest. I got on board my lorry at 5 a.m., and at 12 midday we got to a village, where we parked and found most excellent billets. The situation appears to be growing clearer, so it looks as if the battery won't be long out of action. This is a very inadequate account of the wonderful week, but at the moment, like everybody and everything else, my head is in a whirl. When I have leisure I shall give you a more detailed account.
HONOUR TO LISBURN'S DEAD.
A PERPETUAL REMINDER OF THIEPVAL.
At the monthly meeting of Lisburn Urban Council on Wednesday -- Mr. William Davis (chairman) presiding -- Dr. George St.George asked the Council's acceptance of a gong in the form of a shell mounted with two buttons of the Lisburn Loyal Infantry of 1780 and a badge of the Ulster Division. The gong, which was tastefully affixed to the Chairman's Desk, bore the following inscription:--
11th Batt. Royal Irish Rifles (South Antrim Volunteers). Presented by Dr. George St.George, first chairman Lisburn Urban District Council, 1899-1901, in memory of the Lisburn men who laid down their lives for King, and country, 1914-1918.
Dr. St.George, in handing over the gift, said it had occurred to him that it would be an interesting thing for them to have some kind of a memorial in the Council Chamber to those of their townsmen who had fallen at the front, and through the kindness of an officer friend, Lieutenant Samuel Waring, he had been able to get one of the first shells fired at the enemy by the Ulster Division at Thiepval in that memorable battle in which the Volunteers had so greatly distinguished themselves on the 1st of July, 1916. He had it made into a gong, and, as they would see, mounted with two buttons of the Lisburn Loyal Infantry of 1780 find the badge of the Ulster Division. The badge had been worn by an officer, and the buttons by men who were in the charge. While the memorial might he in itself a small thing, yet it would serve to remind them of those brave men who had fallen, who had laid down their lives for King and country in a war of right against cruelty, aggression, and murder. He thanked God that our army up to the present had kept their hands clean. Having instanced some of the outrages perpetrated by the enemy, especially on women and children, the Doctor recalled that up to the time recruiting was stopped, for some reason or other, over 2,000 men had passed through his hands. He also remembered the great rush there was of volunteers when the recruiting opened in the Assembly Rooms, where he was kept busy from nine o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock in the evening passing young men for the army. Alas! some of them would never come back, others had returned damaged for life, but they were heroes all. Whatever might happen in the rest of Ireland, the Volunteers of Lisburn would never have to hold down their heads for the part they played when the call of King and country came to them. Proceeding, he paid a high tribute to the women who had also offered their services and had gone forth either as munition workers or nurses. There was another branch of the service he would like to mention -- the stretcher-bearers, who were hardly ever mentioned in despatches or received distinction, yet he thought they had to undertake the hardest of tasks, and enough credit was not given to them. Concluding an impressive speech, Dr. St.George appealed to all to strengthen the hands of the men who were out fighting for them. They could do so by not grousing, by not being pessimistic, and they could go down on their knees and pray to God to be with them and give victory to the right. Then those gallant men who had made the supreme sacrifice would not have died in vain.
The Chairman said that on behalf of the Council it gave him great pleasure to accept the gong, the associations round which would make it memorable and a treasured possession in that hall. It would remind them of those near and dear to them, the men of the 11th Battalion, which was principally composed of the youth of Lisburn, and who, with but a few months' training, went into battle and by their gallantry made history that added a glorious page to the annals of the Empire. The memory of those young men, whose deeds equalled those of the heros who fought under Marlborough and Wellington, would remain ever fresh and green.
Major Jenkins said, that as representing those men who took part in the engagement in which the shell had been fired, he should like on their behalf to thank Dr. St.George for that memorial to the men who had fallen. He did not know anyone in Lisburn who had been more thoughtful and considerate of the volunteers who had left Lisburn, or any man
(article ended her)
MEMORIAL TABLET TO LIEUTENANT JENKINS.
DEDICATION BY THE LORD PRIMATE.
A short service of a private and personal nature was held in Lisburn Cathedral on the afternoon of Good Friday, when the Lord Primate dedicated a tablet to the memory of Lieutenant Garratt Primrose Jenkins. Those present were -- Major and Mrs. Jenkins and a lady friend; the Lord Primate, the Rev. Chancellor Banks (chaplain), the Rev. Canon Carmody, the Rev. R. H. S. Cooper, the Rev. E. P. Riddall, the Rev. J. B. Bradshaw, and the Rev. H. Joly; and the following members of the Lisburn Urban Council -- Messrs. William Davis (chairman); George H. Clarke, J.P.; Robert Griffith, J.P.; W. J. M'Murray, J.P.; Thomas Sinclair, J.P.; J. A. Hanna, H. A. Barbour, George St. George, and Charles Scott.
The inscription on the tablet read:--
To commemorate the self-sacrifice of
GARRATT PRIMROSE JENKINS,
who gave up his young life in his
country's defence in the great war.
This tablet is erected as a mark of
sympathy with his father,
Major A. P. Jenkins, 11th Batt. R.I. Rifles,
who suffered wounds and imprisonment in the same cause,
by his colleagues of the Lisburn Urban District Council.
After some dedicatory prayers,
Rev. Canon W. P. Carmody (rector), having unveiled the tablet,
The Lord Primate said:-- We hereby declare this tablet duly dedicated to the glory of God and to commemorate the self-sacrifice of Garret Primrose Jenkins, Sec.-Lieut. Royal Field Artillery, who gave up his young life in his country's defence in the great war. We commit it to your care and keeping as incumbent of this parish, and the churchwardens, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
The Lord Primate, subsequently addressing those present, said it was to him a very real privilege to dedicate that most beautiful tablet -- he thought one of the most beautiful he had ever seen -- to commemorate the self-sacrifice of that gallant young soldier. Two things the placing of memorials in churches and cathedrals taught them: the first was to realise the continuity of life. What we called death, it was not death, but a continuity of existence; and there in that Cathedral they preserved the memory of a continuous existence of that beautiful young life, that God gave for a short time here and for ever and ever in His glorious presence. Secondly, it taught them to remember such a life. He did not wish to say anything personal, but he had got to say it. The late Lieut. Jenkins was the first child he (the Primate) baptised after he was consecrated Bishop of Ossory. He baptised very few children as Bishop, but he remembered so well the grandparents standing with the father and mother of the baby around the font. Then he confirmed him, and both from what he heard from the headmaster of the school and what he saw himself, he thought Garry Jenkins was the most beautiful character he ever knew in his life. Perfect simplicity, brightness, and purity of character all combined in a most remarkable way a glorious example. He was a joy and gladness to all who came into contact with him. It was well such a life should be held in perpetual memory. He wished they knew the deep affection and regard he had for him, his parents, and his grandparents. Lieut. Jenkins's life was a glorious record to look back upon. It was only in the bud, yet it blossomed early, and would bear fruit in the glory of God for ever.
Concluding, the Lord Primate said:-- I dedicate this memorial to God's glory, for the comfort of those who loved him, to commemorate his self-sacrifice, and as a graceful and gracious act of loving sympathy and record from the members of Lisburn Urban District Council. To God's gracious care and keeping we now commit you. The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon you and be gracious unto you, and grant you His peace now and for evermore. Amen.
A MAYO TRAGEDY.
Thomas Doherty, farmer, Kilmoree, East Mayo, has died as a result, it is alleged, of an attack by Sinn Feiners when leaving Ballaghaderreen for home, because he cheered for Mr. Dillon, M.P. Thomas Maguire, motor driver, Charlestown, has been arrested in connection with his death, and remanded in custody.
DEATH OF THE REV. CANON CAMPBELL.
Just a fortnight ago we recorded the death of Mrs. Campbell, wife of Rev. Stephen Campbell, M.A., and sister of the late Miss Mulholland, of Eglantine. To-day it is our melancholy duty to announce the death of Rev. Canon Campbell himself, the sad event taking place suddenly at Portnagolen, Cushendall, Co. Antrim, on Easter Day. The deceased clergyman, who was seventy-five years of age, was a life-long friend of the late Rev. Canon Pounden, and was long connected with the work of the ministry in the united diocese of Down and Connor and Dromore. He was a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, and was ordained in 1867 to the curacy of Scissett, Yorkshire. He afterwards held a curacy at St. Paul's, Clapham, London, S.W. From 1873 to 1882 he was rector of All Saints', Eglantine, Hillsborough; from 1882-1888 resident preacher at Down Cathedral; and from 1882 to 1889 rector of Hollymount, Co. Down. The deceased gentleman's abilities were recognised by his appointment to be Prebendary of Dunsford in Down Cathedral, which post he held from 1885 to 1889. From 1889 to 1890 he was vicar of St. John's, Clay Hill, Enfield, London, N. In 1908 he was appointed Canon Resident and Canon Missioner of St. George's Collegiate Church, Jerusalem. Of recent years he had been residing at Maydore, Ealing, London, W.
The interment took place in Eglantine Churchyard, Hillsborough, on Wednesday afternoon at three o'clock, the officiating clergy being Revs. Canon Carmody, Chancellor Bonks, and A. D. Mitchell (rector of the parish). Mr. S. M. Dobbs, J.P., and Miss Dobbs were the chief mourners. A large number of parishioners, who remembered with gratitude deceased's ministry in their midst, were present. An address was given by the Rev. Canon Carmody, who less than a fortnight previous had spoken at the open grave of Mrs. Campbell. He referred to the late clergymans ability and spiritual power, and spoke to glowing terms of the great interest he had always taken in the parish of Eglantine; which quite recently had been endowed by the Rev. Canon and Mrs. Campbell, and the rectory transferred to the Representative Church Body.
Terence M'Minn, a young Dublin navvy, was at Lancaster fined 40s and costs for playing "Crown and Anchor" at a children's festival. The Chief Constable said the defendant was "one of the favoured individuals for whom our fellows are dying at the front."
LISBURN PETTY SESSIONS.
This court was held yesterday, before Messrs. William Davis, J.P. (presiding); Alan Bell, R.M.; William M'Ilroy, J.P.; and William J. M'Murray, J.P.
Constable Timoney summoned James Mooney for drunkenness on the 23rd inst. Fined 5s and costs.
Constable Newman summoned Samuel Larmour for driving an unlighted vehicle after lighting-up time. Defendant gave a wrong name and address. A fine of 2s 6d was imposed.
Constable Newman charged Thomas Henderson with a similar breach of the law. Defendant in this case said he had been detained, and he was sorry. Fined 6d and costs.
The court only lasted, a few minutes.
There was only one case in the Town Court -- a man named James Donegan being summoned for drunkenness by Constable Newman. He wife fined 5s and costs. Mr. Joseph Allen prosecuted for Mr. Wellington Young.
^ top of page
Lisburn Standard - Friday, 12 April, 1918
PATTERSON -- 4th April, 1918, at 4 Hamilton Terrace, Antrim Road, Lisburn, to the wife of the Rev. Walter Patterson, B.A., The Manse, Portglenone, Co. Antrim -- a son.
MOLES--CARSON -- April 9, 1868, at Killymurris Church, Co. Antrim, by the Rev. J. Wilson, Edward, third son of Edward Moles, The Park, Gilford, Co. Down, to Margaret [?], second daughter of James Carson, Newtowncrommeline, Co. Antrim. (Now of Ardmore Villa, Ballymena.)
Roll of Honour
KERR -- March 21, killed in action, Lieut. Jim Kerr, Royal Irish Rifles, third son of Frank Kerr, Solicitor, Belfast. -- R.I.P.
SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE
RECORDS OF OLD LISBURN
AND THE MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.
-- -- --
Edited by JAMES CARSON.
-- -- --
-- -- --
SEYMOUR V. WALLACE.
BELFAST ASSIZE SPECIAL JURY, JULY, 1871.
Notes from Address by Counsel for Sir Richard Wallace.
He would ask their particular attention to this important circumstance, that, whatever the result of the litigation may be -- whether, as he confidently hoped, Mr. Wallace will succeed in establishing his title to those estates, or that the defendant, Sir Hamilton Seymour, will be the successful litigant -- whatever be the result, the estates will be no longer the Hertford estates. They are separated from the marquisate of Hertford, from which, by the death of the late marquis, they have been detached.
In the year 1790 the marquisate of Hertford and earldom of Yarmouth were granted to the then Earl of Hertford, who thereby became the first marquis in 1793. He was succeeded in 1794 by his eldest son. He had a large family, seven sons and six daughters; and in '94 the eldest son became the marquis, the second after the creation of the peerage in that family. The second marquis was married twice. By the first wife he had no issue, but he married secondly Isabella Anne, the daughter of Viscount Irwin, of Scotland, and by that union he had an only son, Francis Charles Ingram Seymour Conway, who was the third Marquis.
Now, the third marquis, married a foreign lady, Madlle. Faniani, and she was the daughter of a dancer, and they might well suppose that the marriage was not very pleasing to the other branches collateral of the Seymour family. She gave birth to four children; one, a daughter, was born before the marriage, and possibly that circumstance may have led to what undoubtedly did take place -- that she was not received into the Seymour family as the wife of the head of the family, which, if differently selected, would probably have been otherwise. The daughter of the dancer of whom he spoke had three sons, the eldest Richard Seymour Conway, and he was the fourth marquis, and was the late Marquis of Hertford, the last of the line, who died. He was, in other words, the eldest legitimate son of Maria Faniani, the dancer's daughter, afterwards Marchioness of Hertford. Her second son was Lord Henry Seymour. This Mademoiselle Faniani does not appear to have lived with her other sons, or to have cared much for cultivating the acquaintance of the family who had turned their backs upon her, and so she lived in Paris almost continually. Her son, the late marquis, then Earl of Yarmouth, also went to Paris to reside at a very early age, and, in fact, spent the greater part of his time away from this country, and was not in any sense a resident in Great Britain. He was devotedly attached to his mother; whether it was that the affection which existed in his breast by reason of their being slighted by other members of the family he would not say, but whatever was the cause -- whether it was the maternal love for his mother, or the sympathy he felt for her slighted condition -- he regarded her with feelings of the sincerest love. He evidently was not well pleased at the manner in which she was treated by the other members of the family, and, as if he wished to soften the aspersion and sustain her under the affliction which she must have experienced at he contemplation of her loneliness, he remained always by her side, attending to and comforting her. This being the condition of affairs, the Marchioness of Hertford and the Marquis of Hertford both resided in Paris; and he would now, at this stage, call their attention to the connection of the plaintiff with these distinguished parties.
The plaintiff, Mr. Wallace, was born in England about the year 1819. He was the son of Mrs. Agnes Jackson, a Scotch lady, her maiden same being Wallace, and the earliest reminiscence of the plaintiff is this circumstance, that he was brought, when a child, from England to Paris, where his mother at that time resided, and was paying a visit to Lord Hertford. On being brought over to Paris he was introduced, or he might say more correctly of one of his tender years, he was shown to Lord Hertford. Eventually, after the lapse of a few months, he was one day taken into the carriage of the Marchioness of Hertford, the mother of the then Earl of Yarmouth, and from that day up to the time of the death of the Marquis of Hertford in 1870 Mr. Richard Wallace, boy, youth, and man, never left Lord Hertford. He was educated as a child, he was educated as a youth, under the direction of the late marquis; and as he advanced towards man's estate he was given an allowance of a very handsome sum, £1,000 a year. He received considerable presents from time to time, and he might illustrate the liberality with which he was treated by mentioning that when he grew a little older, and commenced amusing himself by speculating on the Bourse, they find Lord Hertford paying sums amounting to £27,000, and making an entry in his diary, "Richard paid for his losses in speculating on the Bourse, so much." In every entry made with reference to him, in his diary or any other document, it is evidently in the affectionate terms with which he regarded him, for he names him "Richard," so that there cannot be the least doubt as to the kindly relations that existed between the parties. When first this acquaintance was formed the Marquis and Marchioness of Hertford lived in the Rue Lafitte, in Paris, and we find Mr. Wallace always treated and regarded as a member of the family, dining with them daily, driving in the family carriage, and, in fact, accompanying them as a matter of course wherever they went. Thus matters continued to progress up to the year 1837, and it was at this date that both properties of the marquis, the English and the Irish, became dissevered. The estates, English and Irish, of the Marquis of Hertford were settled by a deed bearing date the 2nd day of October, 1802.
The result of that was that the second marquis having died in 1822, the third marquis was tenant for life, remainder to the fourth marquis for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail. That deed contained a power of revocation, which in events that may occur was exercisable by the second marquis, and was exercisable by the third marquis and his son, then Earl of Yarmouth, afterwards fourth marquis. The deed of 1802 comprised and settled into one, and described the estates both English and Irish, including the family mansions in England. In 1837 the third marquis proposed to his son to revoke the deed as to the Irish estates, and to settle them on the fourth marquis in default of issue. That was done by a deed of revocation and appointment -- the new settlement on the 9th September, 1837.
The Irish estates were settled for life on the third marquis; for life to the fourth marquis, with remainder to his first and other sons as before, but giving him an ultimate revocation in view of any inconvenient limitations -- the English estates remaining settled to go with the title. That deed having been executed on the 9th September, 1837, on the 21st June, 1838, the then Earl of Yarmouth, afterwards fourth marquis, who had acquired the reversion in fee in the Irish estates, made his will in these words:-- "I give and devise all my castles, houses, manors, advowsons, messuages, farms, lands, tenements, titles, hereditaments, and real estates whatsoever in Ireland, of or to which I am now, or shall, or may at my decease, be seized or entitled for any estate or interest in possession, reversion, remainder, or expectancy with their rights, members, and appurtenances to the uses following."
He then gives it to two trustees for a term of 300 years upon trust, and he expressly provides that "if my personal estates shall not be adequate for payment of my just debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses, and of the annuities and pecuniary legacies hereinafter bequeathed, and to be bequeathed by any codicil or codicils in this my will, then in trust to levy and raise, by way of mortgage, of the hereinbefore devised hereditaments and premises, or any part thereof, such a sum of money as will be sufficient to make up such deficiency, as aforesaid, of my personal estate, and to apply the money so to be raised in answering and satisfying the purposes for which I have made the same raisable; provided always, and my will is that, when all and singular, the trusts hereinbefore expressed concerning the said term of 300 years shall have been fully answered and satisfied, or shall have become unnecessary or incapable of taking effect, and when the expenses of the trustee, or trustees, for the time being of the same term shall have been paid, then and thenceforth the same term shall cease and determine, and from and immediately after the expiration or soever determination of the said period of 300 years, and in the meantime subject thereto, and to the trusts thereof, to the use of my brother, the Hon. Henry Seymouth Conway, commonly, called Lord Henry Seymour, and his assigns, during his life, without impeachment of waste (except as to ornamental timber)."
"I give and bequeath the following pecuniary legacies and annuities -- that is to say, to George Capron and William Hughes Brabant, their executors, owners, and assigns, a sum of £30,000 sterling, in trust, to invest the same in or upon some or one of the Parliamentary stocks, or public funds of Great Britain, or upon Government or real securities in England or Wales, but not in Ireland, and in trust to pay unto, or empower Richard Jackson, son of Agnes Jackson, now of the ago of twenty, or thereabouts, and residing at No. 1 Rue Taitbout, in Paris, or his assigns, to receive the interest, dividends, or annual proceeds of the said £30,000, or of such stocks, funds, or securities as aforesaid, during his life; and my will is that (subject to such life interest therein of the said Richard Jackson), my said trustees, their executors, administrators, and assigns shall stand possessed of the same £30,000, and such stocks, funds, and securities as aforesaid, and the interests, dividends, or annual proceeds thereof, ii trust, for all and every the children and child of him, the said Richard Jackson, lawfully to be begotten, and their respective administrators and executors, and as to the same £30,000, and such stocks, funds, and securities as aforesaid, and the interest, dividends, or annual proceeds (subject to the trusts hereinbefore expressed concerning the same), in trust for the said Richard Jackson, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for his and their absolute benefit. I give to Amelia Idle (widow of George Idle, Esq.) an annuity, or clear yearly sum of £12,000 during her life, the said annuity to be paid by equal half-yearly instalments, the first of which shall be made at the end of six calendar months next alter my decease." Counsel then proceeded to observe that the Richard Jackson mentioned in that will is the plaintiff is this action, Mr. Richard Wallace, and about his identity, he believed, no controversy could arise.
I may here observe, for once and for all, that in 1842 Mr. Richard Jackson was rebaptised by a Protestant clergyman in Paris, and took then the name of, and thenceforward was known as Mr. Richard Wallace.
(To be Continued.)
-- -- -- --
FIGHTING BLOODY AND MOST TERRIBLE.
-- -- -- --
BRITISH WITHDRAW FROM ARMENTIERES.
-- -- -- --
The question of conscription for the past few days has apparently made a number of people at home forget that some of the bloodiest fighting of the war has taken place this week, and is continuing with the greatest determination and fierceness. All day yesterday fighting of the most terrible nature was carried on on the whole front between La Bassee Canal and the Ypres-Comines Canal. In the region of the River Lawe, between Loisne and Lestrem, the 51st Division repulsed a series of attacks with great loss to the Germans, and recaptured positions into which the enemy had forced their way.
Further to the north our line has been pushed back to just north of Estaires and Steenwerek, and the enemy has also made some progress in Ploegsteert Wood. Our troops have withdrawn from Armentieres, which Sir Douglas Haig reports is full of gas. The 9th Division yesterday morning drove back a strong enemy force which attacked in the neighbourhood of Wytschaete and Hollebeke.
Two attacks against the French lines in the sector of Noyon have failed, while our Allies have carried out successful raids north-west and east of Rheims.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
WANTS TO DESTROY THE BRITISH ARMIES.
The news of the evacuation of Armentieres in consequence of the salient wedge which the Germans had driven into our line on both sides of it will bring home the seriousness of the enemy's new northern offensive (says the "Daily Chronicle"). The area chosen for this new offensive shows that our army is his special target. He will endeavour to destroy us while holding the French. He probably does not expect to do so in a week or in a month, but he has the men and the resources to continue battering away at us without respite for a very much longer time. It is a grim prospect for us, and we must steel ourselves to face it. We may be confident that our Allies will stand by us in every way in which they can.
The "Daily Mail" says:-- Before the Germans can reach the sea they have to overwhelm the British army. It is now passing through an ordeal more terrible than any it has yet suffered. In these dark hours of trial the nation follows its efforts with love and hope. England has faith in her sons; she has imperishable faith in her soldiers. The French at Verdun swore, "They shall not pass." Our men use homely language. "No thoroughfare" is their motto, and they will make it good.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
SHIPPING LOSSES DOWN.
The British merchant ships sunk during the past week were the fewest since the unrestricted warfare began, being only 4 over 1,600 tons, 2 under, and 2 fishing vessels.
DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND THE WAR.
At the first annual congress of the Scottish Federation of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors in Edinburgh, on Saturday, some trouble arose at the outset, owing to some delegate questioning the competence of Mr. J. M. Hogge, M.P., as a civilian, to preside. Disorder prevailed for a time. Subsequently it was unanimously resolved to send to the Commander in the Field and to the Prime Minister the following message:-- "That this meeting of the Scottish Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers and Sailors at this, the first congress, desire to convey to you and to our comrades in the field our sincere admiration for their heroic efforts to defeat the onslaughts of the German hordes in the recent offensive. Our thoughts are always with them, and it is in the spirit of confidence that we look to the future."
A similar resolution was adopted conveying "to our comrades on the seas sincerest admiration for their heroic efforts to keep inviolate our shores "
IN THE CASUALTY LIST.
Captain J. G. Anderson, M.C., R.A.M.C.
Hon. Major and Quartermaster J. Burke, M.C., D.C.M., Royal Dublin Fusiliers.
Sergeant Thomas Dalton, Royal Irish Rifles, Crumlin.
Corporal Edward Gorman, Royal Irish Rifles, Lisburn.
-- -- -- --
Hon. Major and Quartermaster J. Burke, M.C., D.C.M., wounded for the second time, is a brother of Mrs. David Erwin, Seymour Street, Lisburn; Mr. Thomas Burke, Lisburn Co-operative Society; and Mr. George Burke, Hilden. He is an old soldier, having enlisted in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers at the age of 18. He served in the Boer war (as a sergeant-major), and was severely wounded at Talana Hill and taken prisoner. He was eventually released, and appointed quartermaster in his old battalion with the honorary rank of lieutenant. He was twice mentioned in despatches, and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal. He has been at the front since the opening of the present war, and was promoted to the honorary rank of major in December, 1914. His elder son was wounded in France, and had to have a portion of one of his feet amputated. His younger son, Sergeant Fred Burke, was killed in the Sinn Fein rebellion in Dublin.
-- -- -- -- -- --
Captain J. G. Anderson, M.C., R.A.M.C., missing, is a son of the late Mr. James Anderson, Roselawn, Banbridge, and nephew of Mr. James Carson, Parkmount, Lisburn (editor of our "Records of Old Lisburn"). He was educated at Campbell College, Belfast, and Edinburgh University, where he graduated, and also got his hockey blue. He is medical officer of a Black Watch battalion, and was recently awarded the Military Cross for gallantry in the field.
Sergeant Thomas Dalton, R.I. Rifles, wounded, is the husband of Mrs. Dalton, Gortnagallon, Crumlin. He is a member of Ballynadrenta L.O.L. 1059, and of the Gartree Company U.V.F. He has been removed to hospital in England.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
WOUNDED FOR FOURTH TIME.
Corporal Edward Gorman, R.I.R., wounded for the fourth time, is in hospital in France suffering from injuries to the right thigh sustained in the opening days of the present German offensive. He is a son of Mr. Edward Gorman and Mrs. Gorman, Millbrook Road, Lisburn, and husband of Mrs. Gorman, Bridge Street, Hilden. Before the war he was employed in Messrs. William Barbour & Sons' Hilden Mills. He served with a line battalion of the Rifles, and few soldiers have come through more and still retained their lives.
HOW OUR HEROES DIE.
The fact that immortality is, and always has been, the universal belief of all men, savages and civilised, heathen and Christian, in all ages and in all places appeal to Tommy as a very strong argument for its truth. Though death be all around him he instinctively feels that it is foreign to his nature, and when, on the field of battle, in casualty clearing station, or in hospital, the shot-riddled body whispers, "Night is at hand," the Spirit invariably responds, "At eventide there shall fall light."
When Padre has heard his simple confession and given him God's absolution, and, where possible, administered the last consolations, with a peaceful and contented smile on his face he holds the chaplain's hand, and so passes to Paradise. "Good, bye, Padre; see you again. Don't forget the missis and kids." That's how these super-men, these dear, brave heroes of Britain, 'die.' "-- An Army Chaplain in the April "Pearson's Magazine."
REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS.
In the House of Commons yesterday,
Colonel Sir James Craig asked whether an agreement had been finally reached between the French and German Governments, to come into force immediately, by which non-commissioned officers and men of 48 years of age and over will be repatriated without delay, and all officers of the age indicated would be interned in Switzerland, and what steps the Government were taking to secure similar privileges for officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the British forces.
Mr. J. Hope writes that he is informed that an agreement substantially in the terms stated was come to between delegates of the French and German Governments, with the proviso that all who benefit shall have been in captivity for 18 months. The Government had, however, received no notification that this agreement had been ratified.
^ top of page
Lisburn Standard - Friday, 19 April, 1918
STOREY -- April 16, at Fernbank, Holywood, County Down, to Mr. and Mrs. Fred Storey, a daughter.
SAVAGE--GAVIN -- April 2nd, 1918, at Holy Cross, Lisnaskea, by the Very Rev. Canon Duffy, P.P., assisted by Rev. P. M'Quaid, C.C., and Rev. P. Gannon, C.C., Michael, third son of Mrs. T. C. Savage and the late James Savage, "Innisfail," Antrim Road, Lisburn, to Mary Agnes Josephine (Aggie), eldest daughter of Thos. Gavin, Esq., J.P., Lisnaskea. -- No cards.
WOODS -- Died April 16th, at her residence, Ballyhomra, Hillsborough, in her 100th year, Sarah, widow of the late James Woods. -- Her remains were interred in the family burying-ground, Legacurry, on Thursday, April 18th. JOHN WOODS.
SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE
RECORDS OF OLD LISBURN
AND THE MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.
-- -- --
Edited by JAMES CARSON.
-- -- --
-- -- --
SEYMOUR V. WALLACE.
BELFAST ASSIZE -- SPECIAL JURY, JULY, 1871.
Notes from Address by Counsel for Sir Richard Wallace.
That is the will of 1838, or, at least, the material portion of it; and, at the time of its execution, they would pause to consider the circumstances of the Earl of Yarmouth. His father was alive at that time, and he had nothing to bequeath or devise but his Irish estates, for the English estates could not have been devised. His father at that time being living, he might observe that the reversion of the Irish estate was not very valuable, because they knew that during the lifetime of an old man of sixty, the reversion at his death is not a commodity easily selected in the market; and if they took out of this reversion the £30,000 charged to it, and a £12,000 a year to Mrs. Idle, he thought he might say that devise of those Irish estates was certainly not very considerable. It is important to recollect that Lord Yarmouth had nothing to devise but Irish estates, for the deed of 1802, was superseded by that of 1837. That being so, that will having been thus executed in 1838, the third marquis died in 1842. He had said before that Mr. Wallace had been living on the amicable terms he had described with the fourth marquis from his childhood; while, as time progressed, the affection displayed with the Marquis of Hertford was increasing -- in point of fact, as far as he could judge from what he had seen and read of his care, that the affectionate communion of the two human beings could not be closer; and that the fourth Marquis of Hertford had a generous and disinterested affection for his mother and for Richard Wallace before all others in the world. Now, at this time Lord Henry Seymour, who was the brother, and who was heir-presumptive to the title and English estates, supposing his brother to die unmarried, was tenant-in-tail of the English estate, and, therefore, must be absolute master.
Lord Henry Seymour, being at the time of the settlement in 1802 unborn, he must necessarily be a tenant-in-tail. That is what we mean. The fourth marquis was tenant for life, and, in default of his male issues, Lord Henry Seymour was tenant-in-tail. Lord Henry, under the will of 1838, would be entitled to the life interest of the Irish estates, and the life interest only. He was unmarried also, and died unmarried in 1859.
The fourth marquis been absolutely entitled to do what he liked with the Irish estates, and, as he said before his affection for Mr. Richard Wallace having increased as time progressed, he executed but codicil on the 7th June, 1850. Here, then, is the codicil, and not only was a distinct in its directions, but it showed the deep sense of thankfulness and affection which he entertained towards Mr. Wallace:--
"This is a further codicil to the last will of me, Richard Seymour Conway, Marquis of Hertford, K.G., which bears date on or about the 21st June, 1838. I hereby revoked the bequest contained in my will of the residue of all my real and personal estates to my brother, Lord Henry Seymour, and to reward, as much as I can, Richard Wallace for all his care and attention to my dear mother, and likewise for his devotedness to me during a long and painful illness I had at Paris in 1840, and on all other occasions, I give such residue to the said Richard Wallace, now living at the Hotel des Baines, Boulogne-sur-Mer, in France, and whose domicile previous to the revolution of February, 1848, was in my brother's house, Rue Faitbout, No. 3, Paris (formerly No. 1), absolutely."
It is evident, then, that there is no devise co nomine either of personal or real estate but that contained in that codicil. The Irish estates, the only ones dealt with in the will of 1838, have passed to Mr. Richard Wallace. Upon the legal effect of this document this case will turn to a great extent, and with the construction of these documents the jury had not much to say -- that having almost entirely devolved upon his Lordship, who will direct them in point of law, and that will be for others to overturn, if they can, what might be done in this court. He might observe that the marquis lived till 1870 -- his brother, Lord Henry, died in 1859 -- and the result was that, whatever be the legal operation of the will and codicil, there can be no doubt that the intention was to give to Mr. Wallace the Irish estates. Or his death English estates, with the title, went to the present marquis, and he is in possession altogether; but he has no claim whatever on this Irish property. The fifth marquis is a descendant of the fifth son of the first marquis. He is a great-grandson of the first marquis, being the second cousin to the late marquis. In the will Sir George Seymour is described as the eldest son of Lord George Seymour, who was dead. He was the seventh son of the first marquis.
I take the codicil first. It says: "I hereby revoke the bequest in my will of the residue of all my real and personal estates to my brought to my brother, Lord Henry Seymour." Let us see what that deals with -- "the residue of all my real and personal estates" -- the word estates being in the plural number. Prima facie we must take it that we deal with some real estate. We are entitled to throw the onus on my friends opposite to show your lordship that real estate is not to mean real estate, but, in fact, it is to be nothing -- that that word is to be struck out of the codicil. "The bequest contained in my will of the residue of my real and personal estates." We say that that plainly is a revocation of a devise or bequest. Nothing will turn on that now material, because it is a holograph codicil drawn in the testator's hand-writing. Looking at the will, we find but one devise dealing with real estate, and that is the Irish estate. I apprehend that no case can be shown in which the word real estate, particularly when we find real estates in the plural, and when we have real and personal estates used in contradistinction to each other, has been expunged from the will, unless they show a case where it is impossible to apply to any one at all. The other side contended that as it said the residue of my real and personal estates, and as there was no gift of the residue of the real estate, it could not apply to real estates.
I will show that the word "residue" is not an erroneous description. But supposing it to be an erroneous description, it must be rejected in the same way as in the case put about the black and white horses, which is so well known. It is quite established law that if a testator bequeathes his black horse, and he happens to have only one horse, and that a white one, the false description of the animal will not affect the matter, and the white horse will pass, because it is the only subject-matter that could be dealt with. Let us see if that is such a description as will be contended for. Turn back to the will, and recollect that the other estates -- the English estates -- were settled, and that he had nothing to devise but this reversion of the Irish estates, you will find the following:-- "I given and devise all my castles, &c., and real estates whatsoever in Ireland to which I am now, or shall, or may at my deceased be seized or entitled," &c. Is it possible for any devise to be even in terms more completely a residuary devise than that? Recollect that the word residue does not occur in the will at all, and I am pointing out, and venturing humbly to press, that the form of the devise is in itself residuary. I would go the length to say, if necessary, technically residuary; but, at all events, residuary sufficiently within the popular sense to make the language of the codicil no misdescription. If you compare the description given of those estates in the devise with the language of the bequest of the personalty, you will see how closely they resemble each other.
Counsel then read the language devising the personalty, and pointed out the similarity with that and the words conveying the real estate, and went on to say that the language in describing the devise of the Irish estates was residuary, even technically inept character, and sufficiently so to justify a non-professional man like the Marquis of Hertford to use the word "residue" in the codicil. The first use was a term of 300 years to provide for the very same liabilities which the personal estate was made subject to. It was only subject to whatever might be necessary for paying of the annuity legacies and testamentary expenses -- in point of fact, at the time the will was made the real estate was the only fund out of which the £12,000 or the £30,000 could be realised, and was there any misdescription in the testator calling that in his codicil a residue, it being nothing but the residue, after providing for all those outgoings? Lord Henry got for his life so much of the Irish estates as would remain after the providing for the £30,000 and £12,000 a year, and the debts and testamentary expenses show that, in point of fact, it was only a residue. But he rather took it now as if the words were simply, "I revoke the bequest contained in my will of the residue of my real and personal estates." It went further, even. In added -- "To my brother, Lord Henry Seymour." Where were they to find words to satisfy that unless they went to the Irish estates? The plain meaning was: "Whatever real and personal estate I gave by my will to my brother, Lord Henry Seymour, I revoke, and I will give the said residue to Richard Wallace."
But, in addition, the codicil said: "And to reward, as much as I can, Richard Wallace for alk his care and attention to my dear mother, and likewise for his devotedness to me during a long and painful illness I had in Paris in 1840, and on all other occasions, I give such residue to the said Richard Wallace, now living at the Hotel des Baines, Boulogne-sur-Mer, in France," &c. There they have a declaration from the testator, drawn up in his own writing, that he wished to do all he could for Richard Wallace. His brother would seem to have been a wealthy man; his brother was provided for as marquis was exactly in the manner in which the present marquis is; he was absolutely entitled to dispose of the Irish estates in whatever way he pleased. But the testator said in the codicil, "I want to reward as much as I can Richard Wallace." Was not that a declaration that he wanted to give him as much as he could? Why was it not to apply to what they saw it plainly could apply to -- the Irish estates given to Lord Henry Seymour, who died unmarried not long after -- and very probably the marquis knew he never would be married. It appeared to him (counsel) that it was impossible, consistently with the ordinary rules of construction, to leave out the word "real," and not only that, but to do so it would not only be necessary to reduce personal estates to the singular number and read the will thus: "I hereby revoke the part contained in my will leaving the residue of my personal estate to my brother."
He admitted at once that if the Irish estates were left to go with the title there would be certainly an argument for improbability, though, indeed, it would not be a very strong argument either for a construction such as that; but when it was recollected that in the events which had occurred, for once and for ever those estates were severed from the title, the ingenuity of his learned friends could not suggest any reason why this would be allowed to go to distant collateral branch of the Seymour family, and why the marquis did not carry out the intention which he expressed of doing all he could for Richard Wallace, who had been so kind to him. He contended that the gift to be revoked was accurately referred to, and that the legatee named by the will was actually named in the codicil, and it would hardly be disputed that if he were right in his contention that the codicil revoked the devise of the Irish state to Lord Henry Seymour, it revoked the whole lot of limitations afterwards. His Lordship would recollect that it was only a life estate was given to Lord Henry Seymour by will, but in the codicil the testator used the word absolutely, showing conclusively that he intended to give them entirely to Richard Wallace, and not merely a life interest in them.
His Lordship (Mr. Justice O'Brien) -- Richard Wallace, the claimant, has brought an ejectment, and the ordinary rule is that, for the plaintiff to proceed, he must establish his title to the satisfaction of the Court. Without pronouncing any opinion, it appears to me there are difficulties in the plaintiff's construction of the will. There may be also difficulties, and there are, in the defendant's construction; but there are difficulties in the plaintiff's construction which, in my mind, preclude me from at present from saying anything more than that I don't think the claimant has satisfied me the will bears the construction he puts upon it. In saying that, I hold myself at perfect liberty, when the case comes before the upper Court, as if I had never heard the case before, to have that question rediscussed; and I have no such impression as would preclude me from forming an opinion in favour of the plaintiff. But I think the more regular and evident course, and the one more generally adopted in ejectments where the plaintiff does not make out his case clearly, is to direct a verdict for the defendant.
The jury, by direction of his Lordship, then brought in the verdict for the defendant, Sir George Hamilton Seymour.
His Lordship -- I will enter the following memorandum in my notes: "I direct a verdict for the defendant, reserving, by consent, liberty to the plaintiff to move the Court to enter a verdict for him, if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to it on the will and codicils, no question being raised as to the truth of the evidence; with liberty for the plaintiff, if he thinks fit, to take a bill of exceptions on the ground that the judge should not have directed for the defendant."
(Next Week: Second Trial.)
THE CALL FROM THE BATTLEFIELDS.
What Will Ireland Do?
The Very Rev. the Dean of Derry, in a notable address in Derry Cathedral on Sunday, advocated Ireland taking her full share in the war. Speaking from the words, "And be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers xxxii., 23), the Dean pointed out that these words had become a proverb, and referred to the connection in which they were originally spoken. Proceeding, he said it was not hard to apply this old story to present-day matters, and to the call that came from the battlefields of France. What answer was Ireland going to give to this call? What were Irishmen going to do at this supreme moment? Were they going to allow their country to suffer the eternal disgrace of doing nothing when the world was convulsed with the throes of an agonising struggle for righteousness? Were they going to allow the flower of our great Empire to drop into the dust and die -- "Die with the wide world spitting at Ireland: the stupid, the stander-by?" Surely they were going to follow the example of Reuben and Gad, and forget for once their own small private interests and party squabbles, and repress the perpetual Celtic passion for negation and destruction, and do something big and noble and constructive, and earn God's blessing on their action, as Gad did. Surely they would follow America's example and rise superior to national vanity as she did by merging her army with armies of England and France at this supreme moment. Surely they would gladly welcome the call that came for equal sacrifice, equal service with the rest of the great family of the Empire to which we were proud to belong. If not, then assuredly the words of the text would justly be spoken to them. There were homes all over the country that were darkened by the shadows of anxiety for loved ones abroad, for loved ones wounded, for loved ones missing, for loved ones gone never to return in this life. But surely such homes may be pronounced happy compared with those where no response was made now to the great call.
-- -- -- --
SEVERE FIGHTING YESTERDAY.
-- -- -- --
ALL ENEMY ATTACKS REPULSED.
-- -- -- --
FRENCH TAKE OVER 500 PRISONERS.
-- -- -- --
Whilst our politicians at home have been quibbling over conscription and Home Rule, thousands of our gallant men have been, and are now, laying down their lives at the front, were continual and terrific fighting has been in progress all week.
Owing to sheer weight of numbers we have had to give some little ground since last Friday, but on the whole the enemy has suffered most, and is being well held. There was severe fighting all day yesterday on the British front, from from La Bassee Canal at Givenchy to the Lys, east of St. Venant. All German attacks were repulsed and heavy losses inflicted on the enemy, while over 200 prisoners were taken. German attacks also failed yesterday south of Kemmel.
The French yesterday attacked the German positions on a 2½ mile front on both sides of the Avre. East of the river considerable progress was made, west of the greater part of Senecat Wood was taken, while to the south the western slopes of the heights dominating the river were reached. Over 500 prisoners were taken.
The shipping losses by submarine last week were 11 boats 1,600 tons or over, and 4 under 1.600 tons.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
IN THE CASUALTY LISTS.
Lieutenant-Colonel P. L. Kington Blair-Oliphant, D.S.O.
Lieutenant-Colonel Hugh Stewart, D.S.O., M.C.
-- -- --
Lieut.-Colonel Blair-Oliphant, D.S.O.
Although not a Lisburn man himself, no death at the front has caused greater grief in Lisburn than that of Lieut.-Colonel Philip Laurence Kington Blair-Oliphant. Lieut.-Colonel Blair-Oliphant was wounded when rendering assistance to a wounded man in the opening phase of the present German offensive, and he succumbed to the injuries received. He was a great soldier in the true sense of the term, and we are confident that he died as he would have wished and in a manner worthy of his distinguished forbears.
Lieut.-Colonel Oliphant, who was born on 17th December, 1867, was the head of the old Scottish family of Kingston-Blair-Oliphant, of Ardblair, Blairgowrie. One of his ancestors, Sir William Oliphant, helped to defend Stirling Castle against English in 1303. Sir William had a son, of whom it is recorded that he was "so gallant and brave a man that his merit preferred him to a marriage with Lady Elizabeth Bruce, daughter of King Robert I., and sister of King David II. of Scotland." Lieut.-Colonel Oliphant was educated at Harrow, and entered the army in 1888. He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant in 1891, and on 24th June, 1895, was gazetted captain. He retired from the army with the last-named rank in 1902. He married on the 19th February, 1901, Laura Geraldine, second daughter of the late Mr. Frederick Bodenham of Elmhurst, Hereford, and is succeeded by his eldest son, a boy of sixteen years.
Lieut.-Colonel Oliphant (then Captain Oliphant) came to Lisburn during the time the Ulster volunteer Force was at its zenith, being specially attached by the powers that were to the 1st Lisburn Battalion of that force. He was a keen soldier, a strict disciplinarian, and a jolly good fellow, and the men were very proud to work under him. When the war broke out Captain Oliphant at once volunteered for the bigger fight, and to the great gratification of the South Antrim Volunteers, who had very soon become the 11th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, their old officer was appointed second-in-command with the rank of major. He went to the front with the battalion in October, 1915, and took part in all the Ulster Division fighting. On the historic 1st of July, 1916, Major Oliphant displayed great gallantry, for which he was awarded the D.S.O., and subsequently, on the retirement of Lieut.-Colonel Pakenham owing to ill-health, advanced to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and was given command of the battalion. The officers and men were exceedingly proud of C.O. -- of that we received many evidences as one after another came home on leave -- and while he worked them hard, there was no grumbling or grousing, for each and every man in the battalion knew that the C.O. never did, and never would, ask them to face any danger that he was not willing to share himself. While intense regret is felt in Lisburn and district at the loss of such a fearless and gallant soldier, our regret is as nothing compared with that of the remnant left of the South Antrim Volunteers, each of whom feel that they have sustained an irreparable personal loss.
-- -- -- -- --
Lieut.-Colonel Hugh Stewart, D.S.O., M.C.
Lieut.-Colonel Hugh Stewart, D.S.O., M.C., R.A.M.C., killed in action on 12th April, was a member of a well-known Ulster family, of which Colonel Sir Hugh H. Stewart, Bart., late Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, of Ballygawley Park and Fincoul Lodge, County Tyrone, is the head. He was the elder son of the late Captain Hugh Stewart, of the 39th and 22nd Foot, and a grandson of the late Sir Hugh Stewart, Bart., M.P., off Ballygawley. On the maternal side he is a grandson of the late Rev. Howard St.George, vicar of St. John's, County Down, and a nephew of Lieut.-Colonel George St.George, J.P., Lisburn. The deceased had served with distinction in the present war since the opening of hostilities, and his name was included in the first list of recipients of the Military Cross.
He was awarded the D.S.O. on the occasion of the celebration of the King's birthday in 1917. His brother, Lieut. H. St. G. Stewart, is serving in the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.
At the monthly meeting of the County Antrim Infirmary on Wednesday a vote of sympathy was passed with Dr. St.George. It was mentioned that the late Colonel Stewart has often assisted and acted as locum tenens for Dr. St.George in the Infirmary. Dr. St.George, in acknowledging, said that Lieut.-Colonel Stewart was awarded the Military Cross for going to the assistance of the famous L Battery at the battle of Loos. He was a young man of much promise, and, like many another good soldier, left the young wife and family to mourn his loss.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
ANXIETY REGARDING LOCAL SOLDIERS.
No news has been heard from quite a number of Lisburn soldiers since the opening days of the present offensive, but there is strong probability the most if not all of them are prisoners of war.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
ULSTER'S RECRUITING RECORD
During the debate in the committee stage of the Military Service Bill in the House of Commons on Monday evening,
Colonel Sir Frederick Hall asked the Under Secretary for War if he would state what is the present strength with the military forces maintained in Ireland, and how this compares with the numbers in 1917, 1916, 1915, and whether he would give the number of men recruited for the army in Ireland in the years 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917, supplying separate figures for Ulsterman and the rest of Ireland.
Mr. Macpherson -- It is not in the public interest to publish the number of troops in the various theatres, and no exception could be made in the case of Ireland. In regard to the second part of the question the figures were:--
| ||Ulster ||Rest of Ireland
|1914 ||26,283 ||17,851
|1915 ||19,020 ||27,351
|1916 ||7,305 ||11,752
|1917 ||5,830 ||8,193
Grant total -- Ulster, 58,438; Rest of Ireland, 65,147 -- making the total for both combined of 123,585.
Mr. Devlin -- Is the hon. gentleman aware that nearly half those recruits from Ulster are Irish Nationalists and Catholics?
Mr. Macpherson -- I cannot say.
-- -- --
In the course of the same debate Sir Edward Carson asked -- Is it not a fact that since the Bill was introduced 2,000 have joined the army in Belfast?
Mr. Duke -- I know there has been a considerable amount of recruiting in Belfast and the neighbourhood.
Mr. Dillon -- Will you state whether recruits who have been secured within the last few days from the shipyards have the assurance of their employers that they will not be called? (Laughter)
Mr. Duke -- No, sir, I believe that is a mere fiction.
LISBURN PETTY SESSIONS.
This court was held yesterday, before Messrs. Alan Bell, R.M. (presiding); Wm. M'Ilroy, J.P.; Hugh G. Larmor, J.P.; Wm. Davis, J.P.; Thomas Sinclair, J.P.; W. J. M'Murray, J.P.; and Robert Griffith, J.P.
An Unusual Defence.
A well-dressed young woman named Mary Mulholland was charged by District-Inspector Gregory was a larceny of a pair of boots, the property a Hugh Nelson, boot merchant, Cross Row, Lisburn.
Mr. W.G. Maginess appeared for the defendant.
From the deposition of Mr. Nelson it appeared that defendant entered his shop on the 6th inst. and asked to see some boots. There were eighteen pairs on the counter that he had just checked. Defendant asked to see a pair of boots in the window, and he turned to get them for her. He told her they were not size she wished, and defendant left the shop without making a purchase. After she had gone he missed a pair of lady's shoes, size six (now produced).
Mr. Maginess said that defendant was a very quiet, respectable woman. She had one baby, and her husband had just been killed at the front. She got the word that morning, and could not explain what she did or why she took the shoes.
The Chairman (to defendant) -- what induced you to do this?
Defendant -- I cannot tell you, your Worships.
District-Inspector Gregory said that that was defendant's first offence.
The Chairman, addressing defendant, said she was liable to be sent to jail. In the special circumstances their Worships would deal with her under the First Offenders Act, and she would be discharged on her own recognisance in a sum of £10, to come up for judgement if called upon.
A Different Stamp of Offender.
A woman of the tramp class, who gave her name as Lizzie M'Dowell, was charged with the larceny of a blouse and a small quantity of fur (said to be of no value), the property of Margaret Waterworth, Deneight.
Miss Waterworth said she was upstairs attending her mother, who was ill, when she heard a noise in the kitchen. When she went down she found defendant in the scullery rolling up a blouse she had lifted. Witness informed the police, who arrested the woman, and found on her a small quantity of fur, witnesses property.
Defendant admitted that she had been in jail once before. She was, she added, in delicate health, "getting tuberculosis owing to a weakness of breath," and would never be guilty again if the magistrates let her go.
District-Inspector Gregory said that the defendant was a hardened offender 22 convictions against her. She had been convicted of cruelty to children, house-breaking, larcenies, and other offences. Her last conviction was in August, 1917, when she got three months for larceny.
Defendant was ordered three months' imprisonment in Armagh Jail.
Petrol Restriction Prosecutions.
District-Inspector Gregory prosecuted Thomas Smith, Locan Street, Belfast, for on the 4th April, being the driver of a motor cab, he did use petrol or petrol substitute, contrary to the Motor Spirit (Consolidation) and Gas Restriction Order, 1918, and Charles M'Causland, Belfast, was prosecuted for engaging and using the taxi.
Mr. Nathaniel Tughan, Belfast, appeared for both defendants.
Constable M'Donald said he saw the taxi outside Mr. M'Cahey's, Lisburn, on the date in question. The driver told him he was employed by Mr. M'Causland to go out to Sprucefield and Belvidere on Government work. He produced his ordinary motor-cab licence.
District-Inspector Gregory said his case was that the defendant was not entitled to drive more than three miles outside the city boundary. That was implicitly stated in the Order.
Mr. Tughan -- How was he to get to Belvidere -- walk it?
District-Inspector Gregory -- There are plenty of taxis in Lisburn, and a train service from Belfast.
For the defence, Patrick Coyle, son-in-law of Mr. M'Causland, stated that the latter was employed in Government work -- buying timber for Messrs. Harland & Wolff, the Great Northern and the Great Western Railways. He had squads of men out all over the country, and, so far as he knew, there was no train to any of the places. Mr. M'Causland had got a licence for using petrol. On the day in question Mr. M'Causland's car was laid up, and he engaged the taxi, as he thought he had a perfect right to do.
After much legal argument between the District-Inspector and Mr. Tughan,
The Chairman said that as regards Mr. M'Causland's case the magistrates held that there was a reason for his employing the motor, and that case would be dismissed.
District-Inspector Gregory said he did not ask for a high penalty against the driver, but if they did not convict he would have to take the case, which was an important one, further.
Mr. Tughan -- We want rid of the case.
The Chairman said that the majority of the magistrates thought they were bound by statute to convict defendant, and they made the penalty 10s and costs.
Alleged Malicious Injury Case.
Wm. Crookshanks, Wesley Terrace, Low Road, Lisburn, summoned Edward Mulholland, Wilson Street, Low Road, Lisburn, for that he, on or about the 13th February last, maliciously placed on the fence between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant a quantity of yew and other branches, whereby one of the defendant's cattle ate a portion of the branches and died as a result.
Mr. W. G. Maginess appeared for the complainant, and Mr. N. Tughan, Belfast, for defendant.
Depositions having been made by complainant, his wife, and Sergeant Rourke, there Worships refused informations.
Sergeant Rourke, ex-officio inspector of food and drugs, prosecuted Mrs. Pelan, publican, Bridge Street, for, on 26th Feb., selling a quantity of rum to him as purchaser, and which on being analysed was found to contain five parts of added water in excess of 25 parts allowed for dilution.
Mr. Joseph Allen, solicitor, appeared for the defence.
Replying to Mr. Allen, the complainant said the rum was taken from a bottle and put into large jug for him to divide into the three samples.
Mr. Allen said the only explanation that could be made was that there must have been some water in the jug. Mrs. Pelan was a most respectable trader, and would be the last person in Lisburn to do such a thing.
The Chairman -- There must be a conviction in this case. There was a little too much water in the rum. We impose a fine of 5s and costs.
Mary Harvey, 7 Wilson Street, Low Road, was prosecuted by Inspector Smith, of the N.S.P.C.C., for neglecting her three children, aged respectively 13½, 11, and 8 years.
Mr. Allen, who appeared for the Society, said the case was a very difficult one to ascertain. The children had been suffering silently, and it was by a mere chance the inspector got in to see them. Defendant resided with her two daughters, who worked in the mill. In the room were the children were seen there was not a vestige of furniture, nor were there any beds; the boys were poorly clad, and the place was in a filthy state.
Inspector Smith gave evidence in support of Mr. Allen's statement, adding that the defendant's daughters gave her £1 fortnightly.
To Mr. Maginess -- He believed that was the only income she had on which to keep the family. The children were not badly fed. Their appearance in court was a transformation compared with the state they were in when he saw them at the house.
The Chairman, addressing the defendant, said she ought to be ashamed of herself to allow her house to be in such a filthy condition. The magistrates did not want to send her to jail, and would give her a chance to clean up the place. She should get her daughters to help her to do that. The case would be adjourned for three months.
Irish Education Act.
On the application of John M'Kinstry, school attendance officer in the Lisburn rural district, two attendance orders were granted against Wm. George Anderson, and Wm. Gilmore was fined 5s and costs for not sending his children regularly to school.
Sergeant Rourke v. Wesley Megarry, drunk on 9th inst.; 5s and costs.
Constable Alcarn v. Francis Orr, drunk on 13th inst.; costs of court.
Constable M'Donald v. Andrew Stevenson, cycling on the footpath on 8th inst.; 2s 6d and costs.
Constable Irwin v. Edward Dougan, drunk on 5th inst.; costs of court.
LISBURN TOWN COURT.
This court was held yesterday, before Messrs. William Davis, J.P. (in the chair); Robert Griffith, J.P.; Hugh G. Larmor, J.P.; W. J. M'Murray, J.P.; William M'Ilroy, J.P.; Thomas Sinclair, J.P.
Welcome to New Magistrate.
Before the commencement of the business,
Mr.Young, solicitor, said he desired to congratulate Mr. Sinclair on his appearance and re-appearance as a magistrate on the bench. That was not Mr. Sinclair's first appearance on the bench, as he sat as chairman of the Urban Council during his term of office in the chair, but it was his first appearance since his permanent appointment as a justice of the peace. It was by the unanimous wish of the Urban Council -- a very compliment to him -- that Mr. Sinclair had been appointed magistrate.
Mr. Sinclair thanked Mr. Yong for his flattering remarks, and assured him that he appreciated very much the honour that had been conferred upon him in his being appointed a justice of the peace in his native town. He was especially glad to be associated with the magistrates in that court, who always administered justice in such a creditable manner.
Constable Henry summoned Mary Maginess, wife of a soldier, for being drunk on the 9th inst.
Defendant, who did not appear, was fined 10s and costs.
Sarah Crothers, 19 Ballynahinch Road, summoned Ernest Megarry, 3 Old Hillsborough Road, for using abusive language towards her on 3rd inst. There was a cross-case.
Mr. W. G. Maginess, solicitor, appeared for Megarry.
The trouble arose out of a football match in which a son of Mrs. Crothers and Ernest Megarry had taken part.
Their Worships fined Megarry 2s 6d and costs, and dismissed the cross-case.
This concluded the business.
^ top of page
Lisburn Standard - Friday, 26 April, 1918
FINLAY -- April 25, at his mother's residence, 52 Low Road, Lisburn, William, second and beloved son of Anna and the late Robert Finlay. -- Funeral from above address on Saturday afternoon at 3-30 o'clock, for interment in the family burying-ground, Hillhall. Friends will please accept this intimation. ANNA FINLAY.
M'MILLAN -- April 20, suddenly, at his residence, Masonic Hall, Castle Street, Lisburn, Joseph M'Millan. The remains of our dear father were interred in the family burying-ground, Hillhall, on Monday afternoon, the 22nd inst. Inserted by his sorrowing Family.
The Family of the late Joseph M'Millan desire to return their sincere thanks to
the many kind friends who sympathised with them in the loss of their dear Father; also to those who sent wreaths and floral tributes. Hoping this will be accepted by all. Masonic Hall, Castle Street, Lisburn.
SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE
RECORDS OF OLD LISBURN
AND THE MANOR OF KILLULTAGH.
-- -- --
Edited by JAMES CARSON.
-- -- --
-- -- --
SEYMOUR V. WALLACE.
VERDICT AGAIN IN FAVOUR OF SEYMOUR.
Judgment in Court of Common Pleas, December 5th, 1871.
Chief-Justice Monahan delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court. It appeared from the evidence on the trial that the Hertford family had very large hereditary estates in England and Ireland; that a settlement was executed on the 2nd October, 1802, which embraced the Irish estates and also the English estates. By that settlement the estates were limited through all the limitations to the marquis for life, the remainder to his eldest son and other sons in tail, with several remainders over, the ultimate reversion in fee being vested in the then marquis himself. On the 9th September, 1837, a deed of revocation was executed, and a settlement between the then marquis, on the one part, and his eldest son and heir-apparent, Lord Yarmouth, of the other. The effect of that deed of revocation was this, that by it the Irish estates were limited to the marquis himself for life, with remainder in tail to the first and other sons of Lord Yarmouth, the ultimate reversion being Lord Yarmouth. That was in respect of the Irish estates. The English estates, on the contrary, were limited in strict settlement.
So the matter stood on the execution of the deed of the 9th September, 1837. At the time of the execution of that deed Lord Yarmouth was not seized in possession of any real estate, so far as he (the Chief-Justice) could see. He had settled on him under the deed of 1837 an annuity of £5,000 for the joint life of himself and his mother, with a life estate in the lands, but the ultimate reversion in fee of the Irish estates was vested in Lord Yarmouth. The property being so circumstanced, a codicil to the will was executed, on the construction of which the difficulty in the present case arose. The will bore date the 24th June, 1838, some few months after the execution of the settlement.
His lordship read the will, and said it was an important matter for consideration that the subject-matter of the devise was the Irish estates of which the Marquis of Hertford was then possessed, or of which he might be possessed at the time of his demise. To that extent it had a residuary application so far as the Irish estates were concerned, because it referred to Irish estates -- whether actually in possession, the remainder, or expectancy. Formerly no devise of real estate could carry more than the testator was seized of at the time of making the will; but at present a devise of real estate would take in all the testator might afterwards become seized or possessed of. That being the nature of the devise, the next question was the disposition of the property. Certain legacies and annuities were granted, and trustees were appointed; and if the personal estate should not prove adequate for the payment of the debts, annuities, and pecuniary bequests, power was given to raise a sum of money sufficient for the payment of those annuities and legacies.
His lordship referred in detail to the several trusts in the will. It appeared from the evidence that Sir George Hamilton Seymour, the devisee in the will, was not the heir-at-law. He was descended from the fifth son, while the marquis was descended from an elder son, so that there was the issue of one son between himself and the title. In addition to the limitations, the testator gave very large charging powers, and portions to younger children, which would lead one to the conclusion that the estates were of very considerable value to bear such heavy charges. There was one bequest of £30,000, which was to be invested in the public funds, the interest on which was to be paid to one Richard Jackson for life, subsequently to his children, and in default of issue to Richard Jackson absolutely. In addition to that, he bequeathed to a lady named Idle, who was resident in Paris, £12,000 a year during her life, the first payment commencing after his decease. He then made the bequest of his personal estate and effects, subject to the legacies mentioned and the payment of general and testamentary expenses, to Lord Henry Seymour, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for his and their absolute benefit.
Having made and executed this will, it would appear that no change was made in it while he remained Lord Yarmouth; but in the year 1842, his father having died, he became Marquis of Hertford, and entitled to estates in possession both in England and Ireland. Being so seized and possessed of this property, on the 1st of June, 1850, he executed a codicil. Then another. He described it as a further codicil to the last will and testament of Richard Seymour, Marquis of Hertford. By that codicil he gave to Madame Oger -- who was then living in Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, and who had her domicile in Paris -- £5,000 sterling, to be paid by his executors. By a further codicil, executed at the same time, he gave his house and paintings in the Rue Lafitte to this lady, Madame Oger. She was empowered to do what she pleased with it, except to sell it. It would also appear that the testator had a peculiar desire for multiplying testamentary documents, for on the one day it appeared he executed no less than four codicils, three of the four being for the benefit of this French lady. He also gave her an annuity of £2,000 a year for her life. The third codicil was all in the testator's handwriting. By the third codicil he bequeathed a sum of £10,000 to a young lady, a minor, who was then residing at Marley. On her attaining the age of 21 the money was to be handed over to her. A professional man appeared to have been employed for the preparation of that particular codicil.
Then there came a fifth codicil, dated 7th of June, 1850, six or seven days after the other. By that codicil he says -- "I hereby revoke the bequest contained in my will of the residue of my real and personal estate to my brother, Henry Seymour; and to reward Richard Wallace for his attention to my mother, and his devotion to me during a long and painful illness which I had in Paris, I give the same residue to Richard Wallace absolutely." That was the codicil on which the right to those large and extensive estates depended. The only other document completing the reference to the will was the probate, on which it appeared stamp duty to the amount of £6,000 had been paid. The personal property was sworn to be under £500,000. The deceased nobleman was described as of Warwick, Suffolk, Manchester, and Lisburn.
There being the will and codicil, the question which that Court had to decide was -- What operation, if any, the particular codicil had on the devise of the Irish estates contained in the will, and which estates were bequeathed or devised to his brother for life, which remainder to first and other sons, with remainder to daughters in tail also, and in default of all such issue, to Sir Henry Seymour for life, with ultimate remainder to himself? Before stating the conclusion the Court had unanimously arrived at, he would refer shortly to some of the cases cited on the construction of wills and codicils in determining what operates as a revocation. The Chief-Justice commented at length on the effect of the decisions in those cases as applicable to the present. These were the principles which they were bound to apply to the construction of the will and codicil in question, and he would state shortly the reasons which induced him and the other members of the Court unanimously to hold that the Irish estates do not pass under the devise of the fifth codicil. For his own part, he could say that during the arguments he entertained a very strong opinion the other way; but on a careful consideration of the words of the will and codicil, and the authorities bearing on the question, he had since formed, but he would not say a very decided opinion as to what the intention of the testator was. He had a strong opinion, however, as to what ought to be the judgment of the Court.
The codicil revoked the bequest contained in the will of the residue of the real and personal estate to his brother, Lord Henry Seymour. The first question was: What was the devise in the will expressly revoked by that clause? Was there in the will a bequest or devise at all of the real estates to Lord Henry Seymour? In his (the Chief-Justice's) opinion, there was not. He did not come to that conclusion on the grounds argued -- that the words were not sufficient to convey the residue of the Irish estates -- but bearing in mind that hey were construing the will of an English testator who resided in England, and was dealing with his Irish estates. The clause with which they were dealing was clearly not a devise of all his residuary estate. The revocatory part of the codicil was express in revoking only the devise to Lord Henry. If the testator had not added the subsequent part of the will, and if the question was between the heir-at-law and Sir George Hamilton Seymour, no one, he believed, could contend that the revocation of the life estate given to his brother, Lord Henry, would at all revoke the subsequent life estate given to Sir George Hamilton Seymour. On the contrary, he Would immediately take the estate under the will, and same would not pass to Sir Richard Wallace. But what did the codicil devise to Sir Richard Wallace? It says, "I give such residue to Sir R. Wallace." What is "such residue," then? It was perfectly plain "such residue" was the same residue of the real and personal estate contained in the will, and devised to Lord Henry Seymour. If the Marquis of Hertford intended to dispose of these Irish estates, which were the subject of very long, elaborate limitations in the will, he (the Chief-Justice) could not bring himself to the conclusion that he would not have, stated in the codicil that he was revoking the limitation, not merely so far as his brother, Lord Henry Seymour, was concerned, but also as to the ultimate remainder where Sir G. H. Seymour was concerned. Further, he believed if the marquis intended to dispose of such enormous estates, amounting to some £40,000 or £50,000 a year, he would have done so by such a codicil, and would have done so by such a codicil, and would have availed himself of the assistance of some professional man.
Then came the difficulty as to what was to be done with the word "real" contained in the codicil. It was difficult to give a satisfactory answer to that question. It was probable the testator did not know what the effect of the construction of it was. According to the legal construction of the words "my personal estate and effects," in his opinion it would apply only to personal estate, and would not pass real estate. He did not know what the knowledge of the Marquis of Hertford was, but he described what he revoked as "the residue of all my real and personal estates." Having given the best consideration he could to the case, he had come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the words of revocation might be sufficient to pass the estate, yet he was not satisfied that such was the true construction of the words, or that it was the intention of the testator to pass these Irish estates.
The codicil should be clear and explicit and unambiguous in order to interfere with the clear disposition of the property in the will. In his (the Chief-Justice's) opinion, that did not exist in the present case. Therefore, the judgment of the Court should be in favour of the will and against the codicil, the cause shown to be allowed. Accordingly, the verdict entered in Antrim in favour of Sir George Hamilton Seymour stands, as the codicil did not clearly revoke the disposition of the Irish estates the will.
(Next Week: Third Trial.)
-- -- -- --
RENEWED GERMAN OFFENSIVE.
-- -- -- --
HEAVY FIGHTING ALL DAY YESTERDAY.
-- -- -- --
HIGH LOCAL CASUALTY LIST.
-- -- -- --
The renewed offensive on Wednesday on the Western front against Kemmel Hill and the chain which forms the south-western support of the Ypres position is being severely pressed. Yesterday heavy fighting took place all day both in the Ypres and the St. Amiens zones. In the former the struggle raged particularly around Dranoutre, Kemmel, and Vierstraat, the Franco-British forces being pushed back somewhat, though the fighting continues.
South of the Somme our counter-attacks were successful. Villers-Brettonneux was recaptured and 600 prisoners taken. Nowhere had the enemy reached his objective, and his losses were very heavy.
In the French sector the enemy captured Hangard-en-Santerre.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
IN THE CASUALTY LIST.
Lieut. James W. Cordner, M.C., R.I.R.
Sergeant Alex. Larmour, M.M., R.I.R., Lisburn.
Private Thomas M'Cann, Hussars, Lambeg.
Lieut. Lucas Waring, R.I.R., Glenavy.
Sergeant James Bowers, R.I.R., Ravarnette.
Sergeant W. M'Mullen, R.I.R., Lisburn.
Rifleman W. J. Fleming, R.I.R., Lisburn.
Rifleman Bertie Smith, R.I.R., Eglantine.
Rifleman R. Irvine, R.I.R., Ballyskeagh.
Rifleman James Thompson, R.I.R., Lisburn.
Rifleman John Thompson, R.I.R., Lisburn.
PRISONER OF WAR.
Captain T. H. Wilson, R.I.R., Lisburn.
-- -- -- --
Lieut. James Cordner, M.C., R.I.R., killed in action on the 16th inst. was minister of the United Free Church, Lisburn. He was a son of Mr. Joseph Cordner, of Bannside, Portadown (and now residing at Drumbo, Lisburn) and brother of the Rev. Joseph Cordner, B.D., minister of Drumbo Presbyterian Church. He spent some time in Canada, but returned to the old country to study for the ministry. He acted for a time as assistant minister in St. Enoch's Presbyterian Church, Belfast, and while there, by his rare personality, gathered together one of the largest Bible classes of young men in the city. He immediately made an impression on coming to take charge of the United Free Church in Lisburn, and on his volunteering for combatant duties in the army in June, 1915, he was presented with a sword of honour by the congregation. He received his commission on the 7th June, 1915, through the Belfast (Queen's) University Contingent O.T.C., and was posted to a reserve battalion of the Ulster Division at Clandeboye. He took a splendid part in the recruiting campaign in the North of Ireland towards the end of 1915 and beginning of 1916, appealing in many churches and also in the open air in town and country for recruits. He went to the front in Feb., 1916, and was wounded six months later. Writing after the Messines battle, in which he took part, he said:-- "It is just here that the war gives an opportunity to a man with a spiritual message to come to his own;" and further he wrote -- "If anyone has a right to complain against the abuses and insincerities of public life, it is the men who are out here bearing the brunt of conditions which are largely the result of faults and failings not their own; yet instead of regarding grumbling as their prime duty, they stiffen their backs for every burden, facing the unknown with a smile and greeting the unseen with a cheer." For conspicuous gallantry in the Cambrai fighting Lieut. Cordner was awarded the Military Cross. He was home on short leave at the beginning of last month, and on Sunday, 3rd March, addressed his flock at a special midday service in the United Free Church, Lisburn; following this up by preaching in St. Enoch's, Belfast, in the evening. The following Thursday he received his Military Cross at Buckingham Palace, London, pinned on his breast by his Majesty the King, and then he went back with a smile to face the unknown in Flanders. A keener soldier or better Christian has not laid down his life in the war.
At Lisburn Board of Guardians meeting on Tuesday -- Lady Keightley (chairman) presiding -- sympathetic reference was made to the death in action of Lieut. Cordner, and a resolution of sympathy was passed with the bereaved relatives. Mr. Griffith, in moving the resolution, said that Lieut Cordner was a godly, good man. Mr. M'Connell, in seconding, endorsed Mr. Griffith's remarks, and said that we could ill afford to lose such a minister and gallant gentleman.
Private Thomas M'Cann, Hussars, Lambeg, was killed in action on the 31st ult. Private M'Cann served in the South African war, and rejoined on the outbreak of hostilities. Two of his brothers are serving, while two others have been discharged.
Lieut. Lucas Waring, R.I.R. was wounded in the leg and hand on the l5th inst. He is the eldest son of Mr. Lucas Waring, Glenavy, and before the war was prominently connected with the U.V.F. movement. His brothers, Captain P. Waring, New Zealand Rifles, and Lieut. Samuel Waring, R.I.R. (South Antrim Volunteers), have been wounded, the latter on three different occasions.
Captain T. H. Wilson, R.I.R., previously reported missing on the 21st March, is now reported a prisoner of war, intimation to that effect being received from the War Office by his father, Mr. Geo. A. Wilson, Brooklyn, Lisburn. Captain Wilson was one of the first officers commissioned in the South Antrim Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles (Ulster Division) in 1914. He proceeded overseas in October, 1915. He was acting captain for a considerable time, and was gazetted to that rank on 21st ult. A brother of this officer, Captain W. J. B. Wilson, R.I.R. (Irish Brigade), was severely wounded in August last, and is still in hospital. He was granted a parchment certificate by General Hickie for gallantry in the field on March 18, 1916.
Sergeant Alexander Larmour, R.I.R. (South Antrim Volunteers), killed in action, was the husband of the late Mrs. Larmour, of Mercer Street, and brother-in-law of Mr. John Harvey, Church Street. He was one of the first Lisburn soldiers to win the Military Medal in the war.
Sergeant James Bowers, R.I.R., wounded, is the eldest son of the late Mr. James Bowers, Ravarnette, where his wife resides.
Sergeant William M'Mullen, R.I.R., wounded for the second time, is the second son of Mr. Robert M'Mullen, "Herald" Office, Lisburn. Sergeant M'Mullen only returned to the front three weeks ago.
Rifleman W. J. Fleming, R.I.R., wounded in the leg, is a son of Mr. Samuel Fleming, Bachelors' Walk, Lisburn.
Rifleman Bertie Smith, R.I.R., wounded on the 18th inst., is the youngest son of Mr. Joseph Smith, Eglantine, Hillsborough. He is not yet nineteen years of age. He was only three weeks at the front when he was wounded; his wounds, unfortunately, necessitating the amputation of portion of his left arm. A brother of this young soldier was killed in action on the 29th June, 1916.
Rifleman R. Irvine, R.I.R., Sandymount, Ballyskeagh, Lambeg, has been wounded, and is now in hospital in England, his wife having received word to that effect. Rifleman Irvine, who has seen very hard service, was wounded on three previous occasions. Prior to volunteering he worked for Mr. Charley, Seymour Hill, Dunmurry.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
LIFE SAVED BY A RAZOR.
Lisburn Soldier's Marvellous Escape.
Rifleman John Thompson, Royal Irish Rifles, second son of Mr. Henry Thompson, Market Square, Lisburn (sexton of Market Square Presbyterian Church) was probably the luckiest man who came alive out of the first few days of the present big offensive. He is at present in hospital at Holywood, suffering from wounds in the chest, back, and thigh, and had it not been for a razor he was carrying in his breast-pocket he would undoubtedly be lying stiff and cold to-day in France with a bullet through his heart. Before us on the desk as we write lie the remains of the razor that Rifleman Thompson had in his left breast-pocket. A rifle bullet struck the case, smashed the blade of the razor, and, glancing sideways, entered the right instead of the left side of his body. Few people, we should think, can show a more grizzly souvenir of the war. We are glad to say that Rifleman Thompson is making good progress towards what is hoped will be a complete and permanent recovery. Prior to the war ho was employed in the Lisburn Weaving Factory. A few months after the outbreak of hostilities he followed his elder brother's (James) example and joined the South Antrim Volunteer Battalion of the R.I.R. James was also wounded in the recent Somme fighting, and is at present in hospital in England, his injury consisting of a bullet wound in the left shoulder, caused by a sniper. Prior to volunteering he was employed in the parcels office of the G.N. Railway at Belfast.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
MOURNING TURNED TO JOY.
Mr. William Hyland, of Aughnaleck (and relieving officer Lisburn Union), received official intimation early last week that his eldest son, Gunner Joseph Hyland, R.F.A., had been killed in action on the 26th March. Naturally, much sympathy was expressed with the family, and the Lisburn Board of Guardians on Tuesday week passed a formal resolution of condolence with the father and other relatives. Happily, the War Office news proved to be an error, and Mr. Hyland has received the glorious tidings that his boy came out of the big "scrap" safe and sound. Gunner Hyland, in a letter written on the 12th inst., mentioned that he received twelve letters (all delayed), four parcels, and no less than 37 pairs of socks (the latter from Mrs. O. B. Graham, Larchfield, for distribution), and he added that never did socks come in so useful, as the men were left with scarcely a rag; or was news from home (always eagerly looked forward to) so welcome. This young soldier, who was clerk in Mr. J. D. Martin's office, Lisburn, joined up twelve months ago, and arrived in France on his nineteenth birthday.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
BACK FROM GERMANY.
Private John Ward, Royal Irish Fusiliers (Lisburn), who was wounded and taken prisoner on 16th August, 1917, has been exchanged owing to his wound, and arrived at the King George Hospital, London, on Sunday last.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
LAMBEG MAN'S GALLANTRY.
Bar to D.S.O.
Major Hugh Wilderspin Niven, D.S.O., M.C., Canadian Infantry, son of the late Dr. James Simpson Niven, of Chrome Hill, Lambeg, has been awarded a bar to his Distinguished Order Medal. He did excellent work in going to the front line during the operations and reorganising scattered units. He personally carried away the wounded and saw to their evacuation in the face of great difficulties and dangers. His grasp of the situation in the captured position was of a high order.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
GALLANTRY OF BRITISH ARMY.
Despatch from Sir Douglas Haig.
The following telegraphic despatch was received on Tuesday from Sir Douglas Haig at the General Headquarters in France:--
The number of divisions employed by the enemy against the British alone since the opening of his offensive on March 21 already is 102, and many of these have been employed twice or three times. In resisting the heavy blows which such a concentration of troops has enabled the enemy to direct against the British army all ranks, arms, and services have behaved with a gallantry, courage, and resolution for which no praise can be too high.
Mention has been made in previous communiques of certain British divisions for conduct of outstanding gallantry. Many other divisions also have greatly distinguished themselves, The Guards Division, after five days of heavy fighting at Boiry-Becquerelle, completely repulsed hostile attacks delivered in great strength on March 28 and again on March 30, inflicting heavy losses on the enemy. This division, with the 31st and 3rd Divisions on its right and left, in severe fighting on those and other occasions, successfully resisted all the enemy's efforts to open out the northern flank of his attack.
Especially gallant service, was performed also on March 28 by the 4th Division north of the Scarpe in assisting to break up the attacks launched by the enemy on that day for the capture of Arras and the Vimy Ridge. This division also distinguished itself on the the Lys battle front on the night of April 14-15.
During the first two days of the enemy's offensive south of Arras the 21st Division maintained its position at Epehy against all assaults, and only withdrew from the village under orders when the progress made by the enemy to the south rendered such a course necessary. Before this division withdrew it inflicted great loss in the enemy, and the German official reports acknowledge the bitterness of the fighting.
The 25th Division was in close support when the German attack opened, and was at once sent into battle in the neighbourhood of the Bapaume-Cambrai road. Though constantly attacked, it was not dislodged from any position by the enemy's assault.
On 13th April the 31st Division was holding a front of some 9,000 yards east of the Foret de Nieppe. The division was already greatly reduced in strength as the result of previous fighting, and the enemy was still pressing his advance. The troops were informed that their line had to be held to the last to cover the detraining of reinforcements, and all ranks responded with the most magnificent courage and devotion to the appeal made to them. Throughout a long day of incessant fighting they beat off a succession of determined attacks. In the evening the enemy made a last great effort, and by sheer weight of numbers overran certain portions of our line, the defenders of which died fighting, but would not give ground.
After severe fighting in the neighbourhood of Croisilles at the commencement of the battle, the 34th Division took over the Armentieres sector, and was in line there on April 9. The division maintained its positions intact throughout the first two days of the Lys battle.
The 3rd and 4th Australian Divisions at Mericourt L'Abbe and Dernancourt, the New Zealand Division at Serre, and, at a later date, the 5th Australian Division south of the Somme, all performed most valuable and gallant service during the latter stages of the German attack on the Somme. With their aid the enemy's progress was definitely checked, and by the vigour of their defence all his attempts to continue his advance have been repulsed, with the heaviest losses to his troops.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
EQUIPMENT FOR ROYAL AIR FORCES.
Ravarnette Weaving Company's Efforts Appreciated.
The directors of the Ravarnette Weaving Company, Lisburn, on Monday received the following telegram from General Alexander, C.S.O., Areo Supply, London:--
Secretary of State for; Air and Air Council ask me to convey to your firm, your staff, and the workers their since thanks and appreciation of your able efforts during the past six months, which have enabled the Royal Air Forces in the field to receive such satisfactory supply of aircraft equipment and to make good their losses so well through their unexampled fighting of last month.
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
HEARTENING BRITISH NAVAL RAID
On Monday night a heartening raid was carried out by naval forces on Ostend and Zeebrugge. A landing was made on the Mole at the latter place, and much destruction accomplished. Five obsolete cruisers filled with concrete were blown up with the object of blocking the entrance to the harbours, and two old submarines were suitably used to demolish the piling at the Mole. It is believed these objects were accomplished. A German destroyer was torpedoed. A small British destroyer was sunk, and two motor boats and two launches are missing.
According to a Berlin telegram, the Kaiser has visited Mole and convinced, himself that the damage caused by the blowing up of the railway bridge had already been temporarily repaired, and that the final bridging of the gap can be carried out in a few days.
-- -- -- -- -- --
It was announced in the Dutch Parliament that the relations between Germany and Holland are seriously strained. The German demands for transit across Holland are very stiff, though not quite in the form of an ultimatum, and the Dutch Government can scarcely concede them without a breach of neutrality.
DEATH OF MR. JOSEPH M'MILLEN, LISBURN.
The death took place suddenly on Saturday morning at the Masonic Hall, Castle Street, Lisburn, of Mr. Joseph M'Millen, who for many years had acted as caretaker of the hall. Deceased was a quiet, unassuming man, and was held in much respect by all who knew him. He was a Mason of long standing, and was a Past King of St. John's Royal Arch Chapter No. 811, and a P.M. of Masonic, Lodges Nos. 121 and 811. He was a devoted Presbyterian, and an elder of Hillhall Church.
The funeral took place to the family burying-ground, Hillhall, on Monday afternoon. There was a large cortege, in which the members of the Masonic Fraternity predominated. The chief mourners were deceased's two sons, Thomas and Harry. The only other boy (John) is on active service. Prior to the funeral Rev. W. C. Cowden, minister of Hillhall Presbyterian Church, conducted a touching service in the house. Rev. R. W. Hamilton assisted Rev. Mr. Cowden at the graveside. Wreaths were sent by the following:--
With deepest sympathy, from Billy and Eva.
With sincere sympathy, from E. Ellis.
In loving memory, from E. Dickie.
With deepest sympathy, from the Session of Hallhall Presbyterian Church.
St. George Masonic Lodge No. 267, Lisburn, with deepest sympathy, from officers and brethren.
With deepest sympathy and to the memory of Bro. Joseph M'Millen, P.M., from the officers and brethren of St. John's Masonic Lodge No. 121, Lisburn.
In memory of Bro. Joseph M'Millen, P.M., P.K., from the officers and brethren of St. John's Masonic Lodge No. 811, Lisburn.
With fraternal sympathy and to the memory of our V.D.C., Joseph M'Millen, P.K., from St. John's R.A. Chapter No. 811, Lisburn.
Messrs. Jellie & Fullerton had charge of the funeral arrangements, which were carried out under the personal supervision of Mr. Fullerton.
^ top of page