Gregory, and was mainly in favor of Cath erine Marsden and Else, whom it also named an executor. Else alleged that he had discovered this codicil among the papers of the deceased along with an epitome or abstract of the will. It contained quite a variety of orthographical errors; as, " codicel" for " codicil " (three times), " hears " for "heirs," "doughter" for "daughter," "executers " for "executors," "conferm" for " confirm;" in the attestation clause the document is stated to have been executed "in the presences of us." Eight months later, the second codicil was found. Like the former, it was discovered by Else, and was largely in his favor. He professed to have found it on 1oth December, 1856, pinned on to one of the leaves of a little penny account-book which had belonged to the testator. It was dated 6th January, 1856, was attested by Knowles and Adams, a surgeon who had died since the action was raised, and — subject to an annuity to Knowles's son and another to Catherine Marsden's mother — gave the bulk of the testator's property to Else. The misspell ings in the second codicil were not less glar ing than those in the first. " Contiguous" became " contiguaes," "annexed" dropped, the ultimate " e," " commutation " was twice rendered " commuation," " immedi ately," "numbered," "assigns," "tithe," and " presence, became, respectively, " immediatley," " numbred," " assignes," " tith," and " prensence." The words in question were all correctly spelled by the testator in his authentic will. Though the suspicions of Nuttall's trustees were now thoroughly aroused, they did not assume the responsi bility of questioning the codicils, and for the time both passed unchallenged. Hut after the lapse of nine or ten months, a third codicil made its appearance. It was dated 1 2th January, 1856, six days after the second, and like its two predecessors was entirely in favor of Else, whom it now sub stituted for John Nuttall as residuary devisee. It was attested by Knowles and
Adams. The circumstances of its discovery were as follows : At the back of Nuttall's house was a court, on one side of which was a flight of ten or twelve stone steps leading up to a hay-loft, at the farther end of which was a small lumber-room. Else, who shortly after the testator's death had taken up his residence at the testator's house, desired to have the window of this place cleaned, and told a boy named Champion, who was in his service, to go and clean it. Here we shall tell the story in Else's own words: "Before the window was a window-board, apparently fixed and firm. The boy said, ' Master, can you open the window? ' I unscrewed it, and I tried to get on the window-board, and laid hold of it in order to spring up on to the window-board, and it came out and I nearly fell backward. It slid out. The boy saw it. I was going to push it back, and the boy said, 'What's that?' I said, ' What? ' He said, ' There is something under the board.' I looked, and saw a hole under the windowboard, and in it a jar, which I took out and found in the jar a canvas purse and a paper; the canvas bag (which contained twenty sovereigns) was twisted round the paper;" and the paper was the third codicil. The patience of John Nuttall's trustees was at length exhausted; and proceedings in Chancery were immediately taken. An issue was directed by the Master of the Rolls to determine the validity or invalidity of the codicils: it came on for trial in 1859 at the Derby Summer Assizes, before Lord Chief-Justice Erie and a special jury. The jury found in favor of the codicils. The Master of the Rolls was dissatisfied with the verdict, and ordered a new trial, which took place before the Lord Chief Baron at Derby Spring Assizes, 1860; and the jury then found a verdict against the validity of the codicils. With this finding the Master of the Rolls was satisfied. The Lords Justices on appeal were equally divided in opinion. Then there was an appeal to the House of Lords, who ultimately decided in favor of a new trial, and appointed it to take place in
