Skip to Content

Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899

In re Leary [1834] NSWSupC 69

succession, attestation of will - succession, estate of prisoner

Supreme Court of New South Wales

In banco, 2 June 1834

Source: Australian, 3 June 1834[1 ]

Mr. Rodd moved, that probate to the will of Myles Leary deceased, may be granted unto John Leary and William Davis.  Mr. Rodd had attended the deceased at his request, and prepared a rough sketch of his will, which he read to the deceased who was satisfied with it.  He returned to his office, engrossed it, and on his going again to the house of Myles Leary, he found him in such a state as to be quite unable to sign; the two parties for whom he made the present application were those named in the will, and approved of by Mr. Leary.  The Court would take time to consider the application.

 

Forbes C.J., Dowling and Burton JJ, 7 June 1834

Source: Australian, 7 June 1834[2 ]

 

In the matter of the Will of Myles Leary. -  The Chief Justice informed Mr. Rodd that his application made on a previous day in term, for probate of the above will to be granted to the executor thereof was granted.

 

Notes

[1 ] See also In re Barclay, 18 October 1834, Sydney Herald, 20 October 1834: ``The Attorney General moved that the registrar be directed to collect all the effects of John Barclay, a prisoner who lately died in His Majesty's Goal, having been committed for trial on a charge of cattle stealing; the deceased had died intestate and a person named Maloney had taken possession of certain money and cattle, under the authority of a written document, which had evidently been concocted for the purpose of defeating the crown of that power with which it is legally invested over the property of persons so circumstanced:  Mr. Francis Stephen opposed the motion, he said that he had attended for the purpose of moving that citation issue, and administration be granted to the individual alluded to by the Attorney General, he being creditor to the deceased in a considerable amount.  As to the defraud upon the Crown, it did not necessarily follow, that because a man was committed for an offence, he must be convicted.  Affidavits were put in support of the objection.  The Court however granted the application of the Attorney General."  (See also Sydney Gazette, 21 October 1834; Australian, 21 October 1834; and see Australian, 28 October 1834 (advertisement).)

[ 2] See also Sydney Herald, 12 June 1834; For other proceedings, see Dowling, Proceedings of the Supreme Court, State Records of New South Wales, 2/3281, vol. 98, p. 71.

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University