Gloucestershire Chronicle 30 July 1881, Page 8

Date: 30 Jul 1881 [unknown]
Location: Dursley, Gloucestershire, England, United Kingdom
Surname/tag: Curtis, Owen, Underwood

The following newspaper article refers to:

• Sarah (Owen) Underwood (abt.1821-) and to,
• her first husband, William Curtis (abt.1809-1881)
• her second husband George William Underwood (abt.1819-1890)

Gloucestershire Chronicle 30 July 1881, Page 8
A Dursley Administration Suit

Mr. C. Summner, the Judge, held a special setting at Gloucester on Wednesday to hear an application in the administration suit, Charles Hancock v. Sarah Curtis, administatrix of the late William Curtis, brought in the Dursley County Court. Mr. Jackson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. F. Norris, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. Morton York) represented the defendant.

It appeared that plaintiff obtained judgement against Wm Curtis, now deceased, for £29 14s. 4d., in respect of board and lodging, and an administration suit was commenced to get the money. The case was referred to the Registrar (Mr. H. J. Francillon), who made his certificate.

The matter now came before his Honour on application by plaintiff to vary the Registrar's certificate and find if there were any more assets. It was agreed that the summons should be amended by making George Underwood, who alleged the deceased owed him about £70 for board and lodging, a co-defendant, and that his Honour should also decide as to the validity of a deed of assignment of three leasehold cottages by the deceased to Underwood, which Mr. Jackson applied should be declared null and void, as he contended it was made for the purpose of evading execution.

Mr. Jackson, having questioned Mrs. Curtis as to some items in the account she had rendered, opened his case by saying that the circumstances attending the deed were very suspicious. In 1873 George Underwood, an engine driver on the Midland Railway, at Dursley, married Wm. Curtis's daughter, and when she died in childbirth, Sarah Curtis, her stepmother went to him as housekeeper, walking daily from her husband's home, about four miles off, for six months, when William Curtis was induced to go and live along with his wife at Unerwood's house.

In 1876 something happened there that gave rise to jealousy between Curtis and his wife, and the former determined to leave Underwood's house, and demanded his furniture, which Underwood refused to give up. Curtis obtained as search warrant, which was executed by P.C. Mundy, and the furniture recovered. Underwood was taken before Lord Dynever, a magistrate, but, as Curtis did not press the case, he was discharged. Underwood then said nothing about Curtis owing him any money. Curtis having taken away a few articles of china belonging to Underwood, the latter instructed a solicitor to demand their return, and brought an action for false imprisonment, which Curtis settled by paying damages.

At the time Curtis left Underwood's there was £200 in a bank at Gloucester, standing in the joint names of Curtis and his wife, both of whom made haste there to draw it out, but the bankers would not pay either. A deed of seperation between Curtis and his wife was entered into. Underwood went to the bank with Mr. and Mrs. Curtis, and was present when they drew out the money and parted it, yet he said nothing about Curtis owing him anything.

Last March Mrs Curtis, finding her husband had made a will in favour of Mrs. Hanock, again made his acquaintance when he was lying ill, and got him removed to Underwood's house, where on March 18th, he executed another will leaving three cottages in Bowers-Court, Dursley, and everything to his wife. Wm. Curtis also gave instructions to a clerk, who was fetched to his bedside, to pay some money of his in the bank to Mrs. Curtis, who thus got possession of it, and deprived plaintiff, who had obtained judgment from attaching it.

In May Wm. Curtis, who was just able to get about, went with his wife to Mr. Morton York at Gloucester, and gave instructions to prepare a deed of assignment of the three cottages to Underwood, which was done, but strange to say, although executed in May, it was dated March 18th, it it recited that Wm. Curtis was indebted to George Underwood £40 in the least, which he had acknowledged.

Mr. Jackson said it appeared as if the poor old man was not allowed to die until he had made away with everything he possessed, and he should prove that he was actually buried at the expense of the parish.

George Underwood was then examined by Mr. Jackson. He said he was left a widower with ten children. He agreed to allow Curtis and his wife a separate room at his house and food for 8s. a week. He should have forgiven Curtis the debt if he had not come back upon his hands last March. Curtis and his wife had a disturbance in 1876, but Curtis did not complain to his wife of anything in witness's presence. Mr Norris said that if Mr. Jackson had any charge to make he had better do so, and not insinuate things. Witness admitted he did not say anything about Curtis's debt to him when the action for defamation was brought, or when he saw the £200 drawn from the bank.

The advocates hereupon consulted together and with their clients, and Mr. Norris then stated to his Honour that the case as opened by Mr. Jackson was completely new to him. It was not till that morning, when he has a conference with his client, he knew of the action which Underwood called for defimation, and he did not know anything about the money in the bank having been divided until it was elicited in court. He trusted his Honour would think he had done right in advising his client that no judge or jury would believe that if this had been a bona fide debt Underwood would not have asked for his money when the unpleasantness occurred. He should have retired from the case if his client had not clothed him with authority to approach Mr. Jackson, who had met him in a liberal spirit, and, with his Honour's consent, they proposed to end the suit by the defendants paying £40, to include debt and costs.

The judge said the merits of the case were also new to him. The course which Mr. Norris had taken was precisely what he should have expected of him, and he had not the slightest hesitation in giving sanction to the terms of settlement.

Mr. Norris explained the circumstances under which Mr. York had prepared the deed of assignment. Mr. and Mrs. Curtis consulted him as to transferring the cottages to Underwood, byut he refused to act on their simple statement, and required the attendance of Underwood. He interrogated the three separately, and ascertained that the cottages had been handed over to Underwood on March 18th in security of the debt, and he entered the date in the deed to make the title complete. With regard to the consideration, Mr. York found that the cottages had been purchased by Curtis two or three years previously for £40, and as, being leasehold, they could not have increased in value, he inserted £40 in the deed. Mr. York went out of his way to take pains in the matter.

The judge expressed himself satisfied.